André Champagne

The plaintiff sought leave to make further submissions on whether he was required to pay the standard 13% HST on a costs award or only the net HST the defendant would pay after receiving credits under the Excise Tax Act.

The court held that it was functus officio, as the original costs decision was final and the issue of HST credits was a new issue, not a clerical error or accidental omission.

The fact that the order had not yet been entered did not permit the court to vary its decision.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $1.8 million claim regarding pension benefits, the successful defendant sought costs of over $900,000.

The plaintiff argued the costs were excessive and that the defendant's joint offer to settle did not trigger substantial indemnity costs because the co-defendant had settled via a Pierringer Agreement.

The court agreed that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted but awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding the time spent reasonable given the complexity and the plaintiff's evasive conduct during discoveries.

The plaintiff, a former Vice President of Human Resources, sued his former employer for breach of a verbal contract and negligent misrepresentation regarding his pension benefits.

He alleged the employer's former president verbally agreed to pay all costs to transfer his previous pensionable service to the employer's Supplementary Pension Plan, or alternatively, to set up a fund to cover the difference.

He also claimed he relied on an erroneous pension estimate provided by a subordinate when deciding to retire.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged verbal agreement and that it was unreasonable for him, given his expertise and knowledge of the pension plan's restrictions, to rely on the subordinate's inaccurate estimate.

La Cité collégiale (l'applicant) a présenté une motion pour contraindre le Régime de retraite des collèges d’arts appliqués et de technologie (le respondent) à répondre à des questions refusées ou prises en délibéré lors de l'interrogatoire préalable d'Evan Howard.

La Cité alléguait que M. Brousseau, un ancien employé, avait subi une perte financière due à un écart entre sa rente mensuelle projetée et réelle, et que le CAAT avait un devoir de diligence et fiduciaire.

Le tribunal a examiné la pertinence des questions en vertu de la Règle 31.06 des Règles de procédure civile et du principe de proportionnalité.

Certaines questions ont été jugées non pertinentes (liées au travail antérieur de M. Howard comme avocat, ou demandant une opinion d'expert), tandis que d'autres ont été jugées pertinentes pour établir les connaissances du CAAT en matière de pension, ses communications avec les collèges et les membres, et les changements apportés à ses informations depuis 2012.

Le tribunal a ordonné que les réponses aux questions pertinentes soient fournies par écrit dans les 45 jours.