Bradley Jay Troup

The appellants (defendants at trial) appealed a judgment that awarded damages to the respondent (plaintiff at trial) for breach of a fixed-term independent contractor agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the contract was clear and unambiguous, including the 72-month fixed term and the absence of a termination clause.

However, the Court found that the trial judge erred in holding that independent contractors do not have a duty to mitigate damages, distinguishing them from employees in fixed-term contracts.

Despite this error, the appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that the respondent did not mitigate his damages.

The plaintiff, a senior area supervisor with nearly 30 years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged the plaintiff breached company policies regarding conflicts of interest, markdowns, and ethical conduct, including failing to disclose a relationship with a cleaning contractor and improperly discounting furniture for himself and friends.

The court found the plaintiff engaged in serious misconduct, including fraud and breach of trust, which went to the core of the employment relationship.

Applying the McKinley proportionality test, the court concluded the employer had just cause for summary dismissal and dismissed the action.

The appellant appealed five review decisions made by the Fire Marshal regarding fire inspection orders for residential buildings housing seasonal offshore workers.

The central issue was whether the buildings should be classified as 'dwelling units' or 'boarding, lodging and rooming houses' under the Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the living arrangements, which were contingent on employment and controlled by the employer, met the criteria for boarding, lodging and rooming houses.

The Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders with amended compliance dates, finding the ordered measures necessary to ensure fire safety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, gender identity, gender expression, record of offences, and reprisal against a community health centre and a registered nurse.

The allegations stemmed from a medical appointment where the nurse asked health questions and subsequently consulted a physician, who reported the applicant to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, resulting in a license suspension.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to link the treatment to a protected ground or establish an intention to reprise.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage moved for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee and his new employer from breaching non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses in an employment agreement.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found a strong prima facie case of breach.

However, the court denied the injunction regarding non-solicitation, finding that any loss of clients could be quantified in damages.

The court granted the injunction regarding the misuse of confidential information, finding that the loss of competitive advantage and market share constituted irreparable harm.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding goods, services, and facilities after being subjected to security screening, including lifting his pant leg, at a courthouse.

The applicant claimed the search was conducted because of his dishevelled appearance resulting from his invisible disabilities.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence connecting the security measures to his disability.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate her deferred human rights application following the conclusion of a related WSIAT proceeding.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was filed outside the 60-day time limit under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal found that while the request was approximately two weeks late, the applicant provided a reasonable explanation based on a mistaken belief about the WSIAT deadline.

Given the short delay and lack of significant prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal waived the time limit and granted the request to reactivate the application.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant in a wrongful dismissal action, which was dismissed.

The plaintiff, as the successful party on the motion, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the defendant acted unreasonably in bringing the motion after the action was set down for trial without leave.

The court found no justification for substantial indemnity costs, noting the motion raised challenging issues consistent with the "culture shift" favouring proportionate dispute resolution.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $5,400 on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of disbursements and tax, payable within 30 days, dismissing the defendant's request to defer costs to trial.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judge's finding that the respondent employee had adequately mitigated his damages following wrongful termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision was well supported by the evidence.

The respondent, who was in his fifties with limited education and had worked for the appellant for 19 years, faced diminished re-employment prospects, exacerbated by the lack of a reference letter and accusations of wrongdoing.

The Court held that the respondent made reasonable efforts to find comparable employment and was not obliged to accept non-comparable positions.

The respondent requested an order deferring the human rights application pending the conclusion of proceedings under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act regarding a workplace injury sustained by the applicant.

The applicant confirmed that he had only filed Intent to Object forms to preserve timelines and had not initiated any appeals that would overlap with the issues in the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that deferral was not appropriate because no overlapping WSIB proceeding had been initiated and denied the respondent's request.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging that the respondent breached their Minutes of Settlement when the respondent's principal sent her a Facebook friend request the day after the settlement was signed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the agreed-upon terms, and the Minutes of Settlement did not contain any provision prohibiting future contact between the parties.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on his gender identity (male), claiming he was mistreated by coffee shop staff and issued a trespass notice.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant alleged unfair treatment, he could not point to any evidence connecting the respondent's conduct to his gender identity.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and two individual respondents.

At the hearing, the parties engaged in mediation/adjudication and reached a settlement with the organizational respondent.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request, dismissed the application against the individual respondents, and noted a closing letter would be issued regarding the organizational respondent.

Former union members sued a union, its local, and trustees of a health and welfare trust seeking an accounting and payment of alleged surplus contributions accumulated in a “dollar bank” benefit system after their expulsion following employer decertification.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claim for disclosing no cause of action and argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.

The court held the motion was improperly brought without leave after the matter had been set down for trial and was not brought promptly, as the pleadings had been unchanged for over three years.

In any event, the claim raised numerous factual issues requiring evidence, including the interpretation of trust agreements, the effect of an employee benefit booklet, and entitlement to credits upon termination of union membership.

The court also held that the Superior Court had jurisdiction because issues of fiduciary duty and punitive damages fell outside the Labour Relations Board’s authority.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action after the trial judge held that he failed to mitigate his damages by refusing an offer to return to the same position, at the same location, salary, duties, and benefits, shortly after a constructive dismissal.

The appeal argued that the trial judge misapplied the governing mitigation principles and wrongly found no workplace acrimony sufficient to make re-employment unreasonable.

The court held that the trial judge properly applied the framework from the leading Supreme Court authorities, made factual and credibility findings open on the record, and reasonably concluded that a reasonable person would have accepted the return-to-work offer.

The appeal was dismissed and appeal costs were fixed in favour of the respondent.

The appellant municipality appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding a former employee payment for accumulated sick leave credits following retirement.

The employee had signed a severance agreement and release but later claimed entitlement under a municipal policy manual providing payment for a portion of accumulated sick leave upon termination.

The appeal raised issues regarding interpretation of the employer’s policy manual, whether the signed release barred the claim, and whether the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.

The court held that the trial judge’s interpretation that the policy applied to the employee was open to him, that the release did not bar the claim because retiree benefits were preserved under the severance agreement, and that the limitation period began upon retirement.

Finding no palpable and overriding error, the appeal was dismissed.

Following dismissal of a wrongful dismissal action after a four-and-a-half-day trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $62,000, while the unsuccessful plaintiff argued that the amount should not exceed $40,000.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the principles of indemnity and the reasonable expectations of an unsuccessful party, the court reduced the amount claimed.

The court also permitted recovery of modest travel expenses for out-of-town counsel.

Costs were fixed at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

An employee with 33 years of service brought a wrongful dismissal action after being laid off and subsequently refusing the employer’s offer to return to work.

The court accepted that the layoff constituted constructive dismissal and that the reasonable notice period would have been 24 months.

However, applying Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, the court held that a reasonable person would have accepted the employer’s prompt offer of reinstatement because the workplace would not have been hostile or humiliating.

The employee therefore failed to mitigate damages by refusing to return.

The claim for damages in lieu of notice and moral damages was dismissed.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking injunctive relief for alleged passing off, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered written submissions on scale and quantum.

Given that the plaintiff had expanded the issues leading to additional cross-examinations and motion materials before narrowing the argument at the last minute, the court found substantial indemnity costs were appropriate.

However, the amount claimed was found excessive due to duplication of effort and lack of detailed particulars.

Costs were fixed at $12,500 all-inclusive.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the completion of proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the human rights application raised issues beyond those before WSIAT and that a deferral would cause undue delay.

The Tribunal found that while there was an overlap of facts and issues, it was not appropriate to defer the application indefinitely because no hearing date had yet been set by WSIAT.

The request to defer was denied, with leave to revisit the issue once a WSIAT hearing date is scheduled.