Allan D. McKitrick

Following the plaintiff's success on the defendant's motion for summary judgment and venue change in a wrongful dismissal action, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $18,129.55, while the defendant proposed $12,000.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellants sought relief to stop the respondent from harassing and defaming the mayor, town council members, and staff through abusive emails and statements.

The application judge refused to grant any relief sought, including a declaration that the respondent's conduct breached the Town's harassment policies and a permanent injunction against defamatory statements.

On appeal, the court upheld the refusal to issue a broad injunction against defamatory speech absent a prior finding of defamation, but allowed the appeal in part by granting an injunction restraining the respondent from maintaining or purporting to maintain any town property without permission.

The court awarded costs to the appellants.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal and Human Rights Code claims, and alternatively, a motion to transfer the proceeding from Thunder Bay to Kenora.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's developmental limitations and the fairness of the termination investigation.

The court also dismissed the venue transfer motion, affirming the plaintiff's prima facie right to choose venue and finding the defendant did not demonstrate Kenora was significantly better than Thunder Bay.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding sewer system issues.

The plaintiff conceded its existing claims but sought to amend its statement of claim to add causes of action in negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered the alleged negligence by late 2003 when it began constructing its own sewage lift station.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the negligence was a continuing cause of action.

As the limitation period had expired, the proposed amendments were statute-barred, constituting non-compensable prejudice.

The motion to amend was denied and the action was dismissed.