Alexis Radojcic

The Plaintiff, Barbara Wilds, sought substantial indemnity costs after partially succeeding in a wrongful dismissal action against 1959612 Ontario Inc. o/a Gibson Building Supplies, where she was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal and punitive damages.

The Defendant argued costs should be limited as the recovery was within Small Claims Court jurisdiction and success was divided.

The court found the action should have been commenced in Small Claims Court and limited the costs award to the maximum recoverable there ($5,250.00 plus disbursements), further reducing it by 25% due to divided success.

The Plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle was found not to trigger costs consequences as the judgment was not more favourable.

The Defendant was ordered to pay $6,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against her former employer.

The court found the termination provisions in the employment agreement unenforceable as they violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The plaintiff, who worked as an executive assistant for 4.5 months, was awarded a two-month reasonable notice period.

The court awarded damages for lost salary, benefits, earned bonus, accrued vacation, and unpaid expenses.

The court dismissed the claim for mental distress damages due to lack of evidence but awarded $10,000 in punitive damages for the employer's flagrant and repeated failures to comply with minimum statutory entitlements.

The defendant employer brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff employee's wrongful dismissal action to Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff's statement of claim sought $173,000 in damages arising from an alleged constructive dismissal related to the employer's COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff had mitigated his damages and that the remaining claims lacked an 'air of reality', bringing the true value within the Small Claims Court limit of $35,000.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that it could not conduct a preliminary merits test to reduce the claim's value and deprive the plaintiff of his chosen forum.

The defendant, Corus Entertainment Inc., brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff, a former employee, claimed Corus breached a retirement agreement by reducing monthly Supplementary Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) payments.

The court found that the jurisprudence regarding limitation periods for periodic payments was unsettled and fact-dependent, making it not "plain and obvious" that the plaintiff's claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.