Andrew Bratt

This supplementary endorsement addresses the costs of a failed mediation and an urgent motion brought by the plaintiff to compel a representative's attendance at discovery.

The court declined to award costs for the mediation, finding no evidence of bad faith despite the defendant's alleged reluctance to engage in settlement discussions.

For the motion, where the plaintiff was largely successful in securing the discovery order, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, fixed at $6,300.00, after a one-third reduction for lack of complete success (specifically, the failed mediation costs).

The decision reiterates that elevated costs require a clear finding of reprehensible conduct, which was not present.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking an order to compel Aziz Pirani, a current employee of the defendant corporation, to attend an examination for discovery as the defendant's representative.

The urgency arose from Mr. Pirani's unclear impending departure from the defendant's employment, which would alter the plaintiff's prima facie right to choose the witness.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing lack of urgency and the inappropriateness of examining a departing employee.

The court found the matter urgent and granted the plaintiff's motion, affirming the plaintiff's right to select the corporate representative for discovery when the individual remains an employee and their departure date is uncertain.

The plaintiff, Wylie, brought a motion to amend his Amended Statement of Claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The proposed amendments sought to increase the prayer for relief and to specifically claim damages for past short-term disability (STD) benefits and past and future long-term disability (LTD) benefits, arguing that the employer failed to provide benefits during the notice period or prejudiced his right to such benefits.

The defendants opposed, arguing that the amendments introduced new causes of action beyond the limitation period and would cause irreparable prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding that the amendments did not constitute new causes of action but rather provided particulars or different legal conclusions arising from facts already pleaded.

The court also found that any alleged prejudice to the defendants was self-inflicted due to their own actions regarding the plaintiff's termination and benefits.