Brandon O’Riordan

The plaintiff requested a reconsideration of the court's original costs award of $38,000, noting that a sealed Rule 49 offer to settle had not been brought to the judge's attention.

The court reviewed the offer and found that the plaintiff was more successful at trial than the offer advanced.

Applying Rule 49, the court determined the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

After applying reductions for duplication of effort and proportionality, the court increased the costs award to $58,000.

The plaintiff manufacturer sued for unpaid invoices arising from the supply of loading dock restraint systems, while the defendant dealer counterclaimed for replacement costs and lost business opportunities based on alleged defects, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and equitable set-off.

The court found the defendant had selected the product on its own, knowingly took a commercial risk, and failed to prove any product defect.

The defendant's metallurgy expert was admitted but given no weight because his opinion was biased, methodologically unsound, and based on unverified assumptions.

The court held there was no breach of warranty, no negligence, no negligent misrepresentation, and no basis for equitable set-off.

Judgment was granted for the unpaid invoices with contractual pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and partial indemnity costs.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The defendant argued for a significantly reduced partial indemnity award, citing mixed success and late waiver of claims.

The court found that neither party acted unreasonably and the matter proceeded in the normal course, warranting partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $6,022.44 in costs, finding the amount fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The plaintiff, Piotr Klimczewski, sought summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer, Nytric Ltd. The court determined a reasonable notice period of 12 months, found that the plaintiff had adequately mitigated his damages despite his specialized and aging skill set, and ruled that the pecuniary value of lost benefits should be included in the damages calculation even if no direct expenses were incurred.

Damages were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application as untimely and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued he had new evidence from former and current employees regarding a screening test and that the Tribunal erred in its timeliness analysis.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant failed to explain why the new evidence could not have been obtained earlier and that his arguments regarding a series of incidents were an impermissible attempt to repair deficiencies in his original case presentation.