23 total
Car allowance included in compensation; no net present value discount for wrongful dismissal damages.
Following reasons awarding damages for wrongful dismissal, the parties were unable to agree on the calculation of the formal judgment.
The court addressed disputes regarding whether a car allowance formed part of total compensation, whether the damages award should be discounted to reflect net present value, and the proper quantum of costs.
The court held that the car allowance was included in the plaintiff’s total compensation as previously found in the reasons.
It rejected the employer’s argument that the award should be discounted for net present value, confirming that pay in lieu of notice represents damages for breach of the employment contract payable immediately.
The court also declined to vary the previously fixed costs award.
Plaintiff's lawyer removed from record due to strong likelihood she will be a material witness.
The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's lawyer of record, who was also the plaintiff's sister.
The underlying action involved allegations of professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the defendant lawyer regarding a franchise purchase.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff's lawyer was present at a critical meeting where the documents were executed and independent legal advice was allegedly waived, making her a necessary witness.
Applying the Essa factors, the court found a strong likelihood that the lawyer would be called as a witness on highly contentious credibility issues.
The motion was granted and the lawyer was removed from the record.
Registrar's dismissal order set aside as plaintiff met Reid factors and rebutted presumption of prejudice.
The plaintiff, Bank of Montreal, brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside a registrar's dismissal order.
The action, which involved allegations of a complex mortgage fraud, had been dismissed for delay after the plaintiff missed a court-ordered deadline to set the action down for trial.
Applying the Reid factors contextually, the Master found that the plaintiff had adequately explained the delay, demonstrated inadvertence in missing the deadline, moved promptly to set aside the order, and rebutted the presumption of prejudice.
The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside without costs.