4 total
Appeal dismissed; common employer finding upheld and Rule 49 costs comparisons do not factor in tax consequences.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal.
The trial judge found that the two appellant corporations operated as a single business and were common employers of the respondent.
The appellants argued there was insufficient evidence of common control, the action against one corporation was statute-barred, and the trial judge erred in awarding substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49 by failing to deduct hypothetical tax consequences from the damages award.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the common employer finding, the addition of the second corporation was a valid correction of a misnomer, and Rule 49 comparisons must be based on the actual quantum of damages awarded rather than net tax consequences.
The successful plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action was awarded costs after beating her offer to settle.
The plaintiff, Kim Lemyre, sought costs for her successful wrongful dismissal action.
The defendants opposed, arguing excessive time spent by counsel, prior costs paid, and that the plaintiff's net recovery after tax was less than her offer to settle.
The court rejected the defendants' arguments, finding the time spent reasonable, the prior costs already accounted for, and that Rule 49 focuses on damages won, not tax consequences.
The court emphasized the importance of incentivizing employers to settle valid claims.
Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Motion to add related corporate defendant granted on the basis of misnomer.
The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action moved to amend her statement of claim to add a related corporation as a co-defendant.
The court found that the proposed defendant operated from the same address, used the same personnel, and shared legal counsel with the named defendant.
Applying the test for misnomer, the court concluded that the proposed defendant would have known the claim was directed at it.
The motion to amend the statement of claim was granted.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed; no statutory jurisdiction to appeal ARB decision under Municipal Act.
The City of Niagara Falls brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board made under section 359.1 of the Municipal Act, relying on section 43.1 of the Assessment Act.
The respondent taxpayer raised a preliminary jurisdictional issue, arguing there is no statutory right of appeal.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the Legislature did not expressly incorporate the appeal provisions of the Assessment Act into section 359.1 of the Municipal Act, and that section 359(11) makes the Board's decision final.
The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
