Adam Davis

Following a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff $2.54 million in damages for wrongful dismissal, the court determined costs and pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on pre-trial offers to settle and an elevated pre-judgment interest rate.

The court found the plaintiff did not beat his initial offer due to a pre-trial payment by the defendant, and his amended offer was made too late to trigger Rule 49.10.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to award elevated costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendant.

The court also declined to depart from the prescribed pre-judgment interest rate of 2.0%, finding no unusual circumstances to justify a higher rate.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $798,453.91.

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old Managing Director in investment banking with 18 years of service, was terminated without cause.

The court determined the reasonable notice period to be 21 months, considering his age, length of service, and specialized role.

The court used a comparator approach to calculate the plaintiff's lost bonuses during the notice period, rejecting the employer's averaging approach due to the highly cyclical nature of the mining market and the employer's record profits during the notice period.

After deducting mitigation earnings and severance already paid, the court awarded the plaintiff $2,540,073.95 in damages.

In a delayed-diagnosis medical malpractice action, the defendant physician appealed findings on liability only.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s negligence and causation analysis and found no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed and the liability determination stood.

The applicants, a group of real estate development entities (Ashcroft Homes Group), sought to extend an initial Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) stay of proceedings to facilitate a restructuring.

Secured creditors, representing 84% of the total secured debt, opposed the extension and instead moved for the appointment of interim receivers.

The court found the applicants' restructuring plan lacked substance, noted a significant loss of confidence in management due to past conduct and outdated property valuations, and determined that the collaborative receivership approach proposed by the majority of secured creditors was more appropriate.

The motion to extend the CCAA stay was dismissed, and the motions for the appointment of receivers were granted.