Behzad Hassibi

Following a wrongful dismissal trial where the plaintiff was awarded $682,151.18 in damages, the parties could not agree on costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $215,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendant's conduct warranted elevated costs because it maintained a legally incorrect position regarding restricted stock units contrary to binding appellate authority, only abandoning it weeks before trial, which unnecessarily increased the plaintiff's litigation costs.

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old executive with 18.5 years of service, was terminated without cause by the defendant employer.

The court awarded a 24-month reasonable notice period, finding that the plaintiff's age, tenure, and executive position warranted the maximum standard notice.

The court also awarded damages for a discretionary bonus that was unfairly denied in the year prior to termination, and damages for restricted stock units and stock options that would have vested during the notice period, calculated based on the plaintiff's historical holding patterns.

Claims for a bonus during the notice period and for aggravated and punitive damages were dismissed.

The anonymous plaintiffs brought an action and an urgent motion to prohibit the defendant from disclosing text messages they exchanged with her in the defendant's separate wrongful dismissal lawsuit against her former employer.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs improperly commenced the action using pseudonyms without leave, lacked standing to interfere with documentary discovery in another lawsuit, and failed to plead a valid cause of action.

The court emphasized that embarrassment or prejudice to third parties does not override a party's legal obligation to disclose relevant documents in litigation.

IBM Canada Inc. appealed a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal claim, challenging the 26-month reasonable notice period and the award of damages for Restricted Stock Units (RSUs).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that non-transferrable skills and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted exceptional circumstances justifying a notice period exceeding 24 months.

The court also upheld the RSU damages, finding the termination clause ambiguous and thus ineffective in limiting common law rights.

The appellant, Karen Irwin, sued her former employers for constructive dismissal.

The respondents moved to stay the action, arguing an arbitration clause in the employment contract required arbitration.

The appellant challenged the arbitration clause's validity due to unconscionability and inconsistency with the Employment Standards Act and Human Rights Code.

The motion judge stayed the action, deferring the validity question to arbitration.

The appellant appealed, arguing procedural unfairness and that the motion judge erred by not determining the arbitration clause's validity.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction under s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, as the motion judge was permitted to leave the validity question to the arbitrator, especially since it involved mixed questions of fact and law requiring more than superficial consideration.

The moving party (appellant) sought to amend or vary a previous appeal decision to include severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, arguing that evidence of the respondent's payroll was implicitly in the trial record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it did not fall under Rule 59.06(1) for accidental slips or omissions, nor Rule 59.06(2) for new facts or fraud, as the moving party was attempting to re-argue an issue already considered and declined.

The court reiterated that it is not its role to scour the record for evidence not relied upon by parties.

The respondent's attempt to introduce fresh evidence without leave was also rejected.

The appellant employee appealed a judgment upholding his dismissal for cause after a workplace incident involving non-consensual touching of a co-worker.

The appeal challenged factual findings, the just cause conclusion, and sought Employment Standards Act (ESA) benefits and punitive damages for litigation misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding just cause and punitive damages, but allowed the appeal for ESA termination pay, finding the conduct did not meet the "wilful misconduct" standard for disentitlement.

The court also set aside the trial costs due to the respondent's egregious litigation misconduct, ordering no costs of the trial.

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to five questions refused by the plaintiff during an examination for discovery in a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action.

The refused questions related to the income tax returns of the plaintiff's wife, the financial statements of a family trust, and details regarding the plaintiff's pension from a previous employer.

The court upheld all five refusals, finding the requested information either irrelevant to the pleadings or too far removed to warrant disclosure.

The defendants were ordered to pay costs of $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant was terminated without cause and sought a determination of his rights under his employment contract.

The contract stipulated a fixed notice period but was silent on mitigation.

The court held that the applicant had no duty to mitigate his damages, as the fixed notice provision displaced the common law.

Applying the contra proferentem rule, the court resolved an ambiguity in the termination clause to award 11 months' severance.

The court also ordered the severance to be paid as a lump sum and awarded the applicant a project bonus of $177,500 based on the agreed internal rate of return.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment awarded by the trial judge in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the award of damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants, an employer and a supervisor, appealed their convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was seriously injured by a wood splinter ejected from an industrial saw.

The trial judge had convicted them, finding they failed to exercise due diligence because there was 'no evidence' of a system to regularly check and clean the saw's anti-kickback fingers.

The appeal court found this conclusion was unreasonable as it contradicted the uncontradicted and unrejected testimony of a worker who detailed his daily cleaning and maintenance routine.

The appeal was allowed and acquittals were entered for both appellants.

A physician licensed to practice in the United States sought to obtain full licensing in Ontario through the Pathway 4 program.

He was employed by a hospital under a one-year fixed-term contract conditional on successful completion of the program.

Following personality conflicts with members of the cardiac team and a dispute over work assignments, his supervisor withdrew, causing his conditional license to automatically expire and his employment to terminate.

The trial judge dismissed his claims for wrongful dismissal, bad faith conduct, and defamation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the physician was wrongfully dismissed.

However, the court remitted issues regarding quantification of damages, bad faith conduct in the manner of dismissal, and defamation to a new trial due to inadequate reasons from the trial judge.