Bruce Baron

The plaintiff employee brought a summary judgment motion seeking 24 months' common law notice following his without-cause termination.

The defendant employer sought summary judgment dismissing the action, arguing the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

The plaintiff, an unskilled labourer, chose to retrain as a welder rather than apply for three comparable positions available at the employer's other locations.

The court found that the employer met its onus under the Michaels test to establish that comparable work was available and the plaintiff could have procured it.

The court held that the plaintiff's decision to retrain did not constitute reasonable mitigation in these circumstances, and his entitlement to damages ended when he chose not to pursue the available positions.

As the plaintiff had already received eight months' severance pay, the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 72-year-old security guard, was terminated after 12 years of service.

The employer provided a letter stating employment would end in a few months but gave no firm date, and the plaintiff continued working for seven months before being abruptly fired without statutory entitlements.

The plaintiff mitigated his damages by finding new employment and brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found the initial notice was insufficient as it lacked a firm date and the employment continued beyond the 13-week regulatory period.

The court awarded damages for breach of contract and additional damages for mental distress due to the employer's unfair conduct.

Following a successful summary judgment motion awarding the plaintiff 20.8 months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The defendant argued for $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the plaintiff’s non-compliant offer to settle as a relevant factor under Rule 57.01 but held that the defendant’s conduct did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court also rejected using counsel’s unreduced notional hourly rate to inflate the award.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

Following a prior trial decision and endorsement directing the parties to finalize draft orders expeditiously, counsel for the applicants forwarded draft orders to opposing counsel for approval as to form and content.

No response was received from counsel for the opposing party despite the court’s direction.

After reviewing the draft orders prepared by the applicants’ counsel, the court made a minor revision and signed both orders.

The signed orders were directed to be circulated to counsel together with the endorsement.

The plaintiff, a 63-year-old machinist with 26 years of service, was terminated without cause due to restructuring.

He brought a motion for summary judgment seeking 24 months' reasonable notice.

The defendant argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by not using outplacement services and intending to retire.

The court found the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate and awarded 21 months' reasonable notice, reduced by a 1% contingency for the likelihood of finding future employment, resulting in a final notice period of 20.8 months.

The plaintiff, a 63-year-old machinist with 26 years of service, was terminated without cause due to restructuring.

The employer provided working notice and severance pay equivalent to approximately four months.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking 24 months of reasonable notice.

The employer argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by not using outplacement services and intending to retire.

The court found the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate and awarded a reasonable notice period of 21 months, reduced to 20.8 months to account for a 1% contingency of finding comparable employment before the end of the notice period.

Following a trial decision dismissing a claim for a beneficial ownership interest in residential property, the unsuccessful claimant filed a notice of appeal and sought to prevent the release of sale proceeds pending appeal.

The moving party argued that an automatic stay applied under Rule 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, requested an interim stay while seeking relief from the Court of Appeal.

The court rejected the argument that the order constituted a payment of money subject to an automatic stay, relying on appellate authority distinguishing the release of trust funds from a money judgment.

Nevertheless, the court granted a limited interim stay to permit the moving party to bring a stay motion before the Court of Appeal.

The interim stay was restricted to 50% of the sale proceeds and was conditional on the appeal motion being argued by a specified deadline.

The applicant son sought a declaration of beneficial ownership in his mother's residential property based on proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment, claiming he made financial and physical contributions to the property over decades.

The court found significant credibility issues with all parties.

The court held that the son did not establish the elements of proprietary estoppel, as his evidence regarding his expectation of an interest in the property was inconsistent and any alleged promise was for an inheritance, not a present interest.

The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that the son did not confer a net benefit on his mother, as the value of his rent-free accommodation far exceeded any financial contributions he made.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded due to the unreasonable conduct of all parties.

Following a decision on cross-motions where the appellant was permitted to remain in her home provided she paid rent to the respondent, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had achieved divided success, as the appellant remained in the home and the respondent received rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.

The appellant brought a motion to stay her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision pending the completion of a related Superior Court action alleging mortgage fraud.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would constitute a collateral attack on the Board's order.

However, the court granted the appellant a six-month extension to perfect her appeal, conditional upon her making monthly payments of $1,675 to the respondent in trust.