Bernard Verbanac

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' constructive dismissal action, the defendant sought costs, arguing for substantial indemnity from the date of its Rule 49 offer.

The court held that Rule 49 does not apply when a plaintiff's claim fails entirely.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they were forced to proceed to trial because the defendant's offers were nominal.

The court awarded the successful defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $50,000 plus HST.

The plaintiffs, a married couple who were long-term employees of the defendant, resigned and claimed constructive dismissal.

The wife had received a letter of reprimand for insubordination after refusing to start work earlier and being rude to a new manager.

The plaintiffs alleged the workplace was unsafe and unsanitary due to clutter, mice, and bats.

The court dismissed the action, finding the letter of reprimand was a moderate response to insubordination and the workplace conditions, while not ideal, did not amount to an unsafe environment or a fundamental change to the employment contract.

The plaintiffs' resignations were not justified on an objective standard.

The court determined costs following a motion in which the defendants were completely successful.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs prior to an offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $9,356.10.

The plaintiff challenged the time billed by defence counsel and argued the work performed was neither reasonable nor proportional.

The court found the plaintiff’s motion ill‑conceived and concluded the successful party would reasonably expect significant costs.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 as a fair and reasonable amount payable by the plaintiff.

The Crown brought a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim arising from alleged mistreatment during the plaintiff’s incarceration at provincial correctional facilities.

The court held that most claims were barred for failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirement in s. 7 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, which requires written notice at least 60 days before commencing an action.

The plaintiff provided notice only after issuing the claim, rendering the pleaded tort, Charter, and other allegations nullities.

Only a negligence claim relating to a slip-and-fall incident survived because written institutional records sufficiently identified that occurrence.

Claims for punitive, aggravated, exemplary, Charter, and treaty-based damages were struck, and improperly named institutional defendants lacking legal status were dismissed.