Alnaz Jiwa

The plaintiff, a former Senior Financial Services Representative at CIBC, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged that the plaintiff repeatedly breached its Code of Conduct and policies, including failing to review overdraft reports, pulling credit bureau records without signed consent, and altering signed mortgage payout statements.

The court applied the contextual approach to just cause and found that the plaintiff's cumulative and persistent breaches of the employer's policies, despite previous warnings, struck at the heart of the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage.

The applicant husband, who had not been formally employed during the marriage and operated a wildlife sanctuary, sought spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and equalization.

The respondent wife sought a declaration of sole beneficial ownership of the home, occupation rent, and repayment of post-separation expenses.

The court dismissed the wife's claim for sole ownership and the husband's claim for exclusive possession, ordering the home sold.

The court awarded the husband non-compensatory spousal support retroactively for three years, but found he was intentionally underemployed thereafter.

After setting off the husband's share of post-separation expenses against the spousal support and equalization owed by the wife, the wife was ordered to pay a net amount of $5,624.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion and the granting of the defendants' motion, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court rejected the defendants' request for substantial indemnity costs and found their claimed amount of $26,000 to be excessive.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The court also resolved a dispute over the discovery plan, ordering that cross-examinations could be used as examinations for discovery for trial purposes.

The parties were involved in a commercial joint venture dispute.

The defendants brought a motion to release $50,000 held in trust that stood in place of a previously issued Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a sold property.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to issue new CPLs against two other properties owned by the defendants, alleging joint venture funds were diverted to purchase or improve them.

The court granted the defendants' motion to release the funds and dismissed the plaintiff's motion for new CPLs, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a direct connection between the joint venture funds and the properties, and thus had no triable issue regarding an interest in land.

The plaintiff was granted unopposed leave to amend her statement of claim.