Is there a dichotomy between a director, officer or employee of a corporation and an individual?

Neilson J.A. in Neilson disagreed that such a dichotomy existed (see para. 69) and found it was not plain and obvious that claims in negligence against the individual respondents personally would be excluded under the “Said v. Butt exception to the general principle outlined in London Drugs”. In her analysis: The fact that a director, officer or employee was acting within the course of employment and the corporation is vicariously liable for his negligence does not preclude a claim in negligence against the employee personally. However, in my view, the London Drugs principle requires that the claim against the individual must be based on the breach of a duty of care that would support an action against the individual personally. The material facts that support that personal claim in tort must be specifically pleaded to establish a possible cause of action under R. 15(5)(a)(iii). [At para. 66; emphasis added.]