Albert Campea

Following a trial where the plaintiff recovered approximately $290,000 in damages for battery, assault, human rights violations, and wrongful dismissal against his former employer, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of over $122,000, while the defendants argued for no costs or nominal costs because the plaintiff recovered significantly less than the $2.3 million claimed.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful and awarded partial indemnity costs of $80,000, apportioned 75% to the corporate defendant and 25% to the individual defendant.

The plaintiff's request for an enhanced interest rate of 10% was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a temporary foreign worker, sued his former employer and supervisor for constructive dismissal, human rights violations, and various intentional torts, including battery, assault, and human trafficking.

The plaintiff alleged that his supervisor subjected him to severe verbal abuse and physically assaulted him by punching him in the testicles, which ultimately required surgical removal of the testicle.

The court found the supervisor liable for battery and assault, and the employer vicariously liable.

The court also found that the employer constructively dismissed the plaintiff by failing to address the harassment and by interfering with his WSIB claim after a workplace fall.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal, battery, assault, unpaid wages, and Human Rights Code violations, including significant aggravated and punitive damages.

The claims for intentional infliction of mental suffering and human trafficking were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 58-year-old top-performing sales manager with eight years of service, brought a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer.

The court found the plaintiff was an employee, not an independent contractor, from the start of his engagement.

The court awarded a 12-month reasonable notice period, calculating damages based on base salary and an upward trend in commissions.

The court dismissed the claim for aggravated damages due to insufficient evidence of mental distress, but awarded $50,000 in punitive damages because the employer alleged just cause in bad faith as a negotiation tactic and significantly delayed paying statutory entitlements.

The court issued a consent timetable for the delivery of materials regarding costs and damages, following a suggestion by the Court of Appeal.

A conference call was scheduled to determine the subsequent process.

Following reasons granting judgment to the applicant on a dispute arising from a share purchase and pledge arrangement, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis, while the responding parties argued that success was divided or that costs should be reduced.

The court held the applicant was clearly the successful party and entitled to costs but found no litigation conduct justifying full or substantial indemnity.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering proportionality, complexity, and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs were set at a lump sum payable jointly and severally by two respondents.

The applicant moved for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement against his brothers and their related companies following an oppression remedy application.

The parties had entered into a share purchase agreement in September 2013, which the respondents breached by defaulting on payments.

Subsequent settlement negotiations in 2014 failed to result in a binding agreement because the issue of costs remained unresolved.

The court found the 2013 agreement was binding, the respondents were in breach, and there was insufficient evidence of prejudice to justify refusing enforcement.

Judgment was granted enforcing the terms of the 2013 agreement.

The plaintiff employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal against his employer, alleging constructive dismissal after the employer unilaterally added significant IT and software administration duties to his original role as a field service technician.

The employer argued the changes were a natural extension of his duties and that the employee failed to mitigate by refusing to return to work.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the employer fundamentally altered the employment contract and created a hostile work environment, constituting constructive dismissal.

The plaintiff was awarded $55,000, representing 12 months' notice, but his claim for bad faith damages was dismissed.