Caitlin Dale

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board but later abandoned the appeal after securing alternative accommodations.

The landlord brought a motion for costs of the abandoned appeal, seeking full or substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the appeal was an abuse of process brought solely for delay.

The court found no abuse of process but held the landlord was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 61.14(3).

The court awarded the landlord partial indemnity costs fixed at $5,000.

The moving party, a director and disputed shareholder of the defendant corporation, sought leave under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act to defend an action brought by the plaintiff for unpaid project management fees.

The motion was opposed by the plaintiff and other shareholders of the defendant corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish that he was acting in good faith or that defending the action was in the best interests of the corporation, given the disproportionate costs of litigation, the risks of an increased claim, and the opposition from other stakeholders.

The defendant employer moved to strike a pleading in a wrongful dismissal and human rights action alleging that it regularly hired younger employees.

The court held that the allegation was overly broad, irrelevant as pleaded, and would improperly expand discovery by invoking a comparator group untethered to the plaintiff’s business unit, time period, or other material limits.

The court also found affidavit material concerning the employer’s U.S. parent corporation irrelevant to the pleaded Canadian employment dispute.

The impugned plea was struck with leave to amend to narrow its scope.

The husband appealed the trial judge's determination regarding the wife's entitlement to compensatory spousal support, the attribution of income for child and spousal support purposes, the set-off of equalization against retroactive support, and the determination not to award limited term support.

The wife had cross-appealed on the basis of fresh evidence but withdrew the cross-appeal during submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on all issues.

The defendant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the plaintiff employee damages for wrongful dismissal, mental distress, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court upheld the wrongful dismissal damages, finding no error in the motion judge's calculation of the notice period.

However, the court set aside the $7,500 award for mental distress, finding that the employer acted in good faith and there was insufficient evidence of compensable mental distress.

The court also allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the trial costs from $35,000 to $10,000, noting the motion judge failed to properly consider proportionality and the unreasonableness of the plaintiff's bill of costs.

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.