Andrew H. Monkhouse

The appellant client appealed a motion judge's assessment of her former solicitor's account.

The motion judge had found the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction due to a contingency fee agreement, but relied on the officer's evidentiary record to conduct his own quantum meruit assessment, reducing the fees to $45,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on the assessment officer's report or his application of the Cohen factors.

The Court also lifted a sealing order that had been improperly requested.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $20,000.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee five months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent was terminated without cause after four and a half months of employment while five months pregnant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in considering the respondent's pregnancy as a factor under the Bardal framework when determining the reasonable notice period, nor did the motion judge err in the costs award.

The appellant, Microsoft Canada Inc., appealed a trial decision that awarded the respondent, a former employee, unvested stock awards after his termination without cause.

The trial judge had found the termination provisions in the Stock Award Agreement unenforceable because they were "harsh and oppressive" and not brought to the respondent's attention.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the respondent received no notice, as the respondent had expressly agreed to the terms for 16 years by clicking an acceptance box, despite consciously choosing not to read the agreement.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Diamond dated June 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs in the agreed amount of $6,352.86 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated May 10, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000.

Following a decision permanently staying the plaintiffs' second action for abuse of process, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity, finding that the defendants' Rule 49 offer was not beaten and the plaintiffs' fraud claim was never adjudicated.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the requested amounts by 25% to account for issues that were deferred to a potential future motion.

Costs were fixed at $34,608 for the main group of defendants and $13,722 for Dr. Kajdehi.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action alleging that insurance sales agents, known as 'producers', were misclassified by the defendants as independent contractors rather than employees.

The defendants opposed certification, arguing that the proposed class lacked commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the current arrangement financially benefited most producers.

The court found that the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting that the core issue of misclassification was common to the class and that a class action was preferable to individual claims or Ministry of Labour complaints.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action in 2015 against his former employer, which was stayed when the employer declared bankruptcy.

In 2019, the plaintiff commenced a second action against the bankrupt employer and several new defendants, alleging oppression, common employer, and improper transfer of assets.

The newly added defendants moved to strike or stay the second action.

The court permanently stayed the second action as an abuse of process, finding that it improperly circumvented the comprehensive regime of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for challenging asset transfers, as well as the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the addition of parties to an existing action.

The plaintiffs, former employees who received variable compensation, brought a proposed class action against their former employer for unpaid vacation and public holiday pay.

The employer admitted to miscalculating the pay and made remedial payments for the two years prior to discovery, but relied on the Limitations Act to deny older claims.

The plaintiffs moved for certification and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding limitation periods and releases.

The court also dismissed the certification motion, concluding that while the first three criteria were met, a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because individual issues trials regarding limitation periods and releases were inevitable and would not be advanced by a common issues trial.

The appellant employee appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding her wrongful dismissal.

After her position became redundant, the parties agreed to ten weeks of working notice.

The employer subsequently terminated her early, alleging job abandonment when she took pre-scheduled vacation.

The trial judge found the employer breached the agreement and awarded the balance of the ten weeks' pay.

On appeal, the employee argued the breach rescinded the contract, entitling her to common law reasonable notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement was binding and the employer's breach constituted a repudiation, not a rescission, as the employee had already received half the benefit of the agreement.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding her termination.

After her position became redundant, the parties agreed to ten weeks of working notice.

The employer breached this agreement after five weeks, alleging job abandonment, and the trial judge awarded the appellant the remaining five weeks' pay.

On appeal, the appellant argued the agreement lacked consideration and its breach constituted rescission entitling her to common law notice.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement valid and the breach a repudiation rather than rescission, as the appellant had already received half the benefit of the contract.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for the next steps in the proceeding.

Two of the three defendants were in default, and the remaining defendant was self-represented.

The court set a timetable for affidavits of documents, discoveries, and a pre-trial, and directed that another judge conduct the pre-trial.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the responding party only submitted a brief letter in response.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action regarding employee misclassification brought a motion to substitute herself with a new representative plaintiff.

The defendant opposed, arguing the new plaintiff's claim was statute-barred and her interests were misaligned with the class because she recently sought work with the defendant as an independent contractor.

The court granted the substitution, finding the new plaintiff had a tenable claim because discoverability of Employment Standards Act entitlements may be delayed when an employer represents a worker as an independent contractor.

The court also found her recent job search did not preclude her from adequately representing the class.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for constructive dismissal and other related relief.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision to focus on the constructive dismissal claim, as it was central to all other claims (intentional infliction of mental distress, human rights violation, punitive damages).

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to grant an adjournment and her approach to summary judgment, noting that the employer had made reasonable efforts to accommodate the appellant, which were frustrated by the appellant's non-compliance.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the order of Glustein J. dated September 9, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $10,000.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff was an employee covered by a collective agreement and the dispute should be resolved by a labour arbitrator.

The plaintiff argued he was misclassified as an independent contractor and his claim was rooted in a pre-employment contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the existence of a pre-employment agreement is a disputed factual issue that must be determined at trial, not on a pleadings motion.

The plaintiff, Fransic Battiston, sought costs of $162,504.90 after successfully obtaining judgment against Microsoft Canada Inc. for wrongful dismissal.

The defendant argued for a reduction in costs, claiming partial success on some issues and questioning the reasonableness of the hours billed.

The court found the plaintiff to be the successful party, rejecting the defendant's argument of divided success.

However, the court denied the plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity costs due to the plaintiff's failure to be forthright in disclosing the amount of costs when asked during Rule 49 settlement offer negotiations.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $120,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim with leave to amend, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $51,710.82.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs and considered the partial indemnity claim of $34,100.37 excessive due to over-lawyering.

Taking into account the plaintiff's recent termination and lack of severance, the court fixed costs at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in the cause.