A.M. Austin

The appellants appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages and costs award following a finding that they breached a three-year fixed-term employment contract with the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly quantified damages based on the contract rather than tort principles, and correctly accounted for the respondent's mitigation efforts.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's Sanderson order, which directed the unsuccessful corporate defendant to pay costs directly to the successful individual defendant.

The Court of Appeal amended its previous endorsement to provide that the costs of the trial are to be decided by the judge presiding at the new trial.

The court noted that the existence of offers to settle should have been brought to its attention when judgment was given orally.

The new trial judge will be in a position to determine the appropriate application of Rule 49.10 in light of the determination of damages.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of its motion to amend its damage claim and the award of only nominal damages for expenditures incurred prior to the respondent's breach of contract.

The respondent cross-appealed the finding that it breached the contract and the trial judge's costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly concluded the amendment would cause prejudice, that the appellant's expenses would have exceeded its benefits had the contract been performed, and that the respondent's reasons for terminating the contract were manufactured.