Casey Michele Dockendorff

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation and scale of costs following a motion by the plaintiff, Paula Boutis, to amend her statement of claim.

The court found divided success among the parties and considered the conduct of both sides, ultimately awarding costs to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis for the motion and on a substantial indemnity basis for consequential steps.

The court also clarified the scope of further discovery and emphasized the importance of following judicial directions regarding submissions.

This decision concerns a motion by Paula Boutis to amend her statement of claim in an employment and civil liability action against The Corporation of the County of Norfolk, the Board of Health for Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit, Kristal Chopp, and Jason Burgess.

The court reviews the proposed amendments, including new causes of action such as breaches of the Human Rights Code, intrusion upon seclusion, intentional interference with contractual relations, negligent infliction of mental suffering, and defamation.

The court applies the principles governing amendments to pleadings, limitation periods, and the rules of pleading, granting or refusing leave to amend specific paragraphs accordingly.

The defendants brought two motions: one to set aside a certificate of non-attendance for a cross-examination and another to compel the plaintiff to answer refused questions and questions taken under advisement during her cross-examination on two affidavits.

The court granted both motions in favour of the defendants.

The certificate of non-attendance was set aside, as the plaintiff's counsel acted unreasonably in obtaining it.

The plaintiff was compelled to answer most of the refused questions, as the court found them relevant to the underlying contempt motion and the dismissal motion, and in some instances, solicitor-client privilege was impliedly waived.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis for the certificate motion due to the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct, and on a partial indemnity basis for the refusals motion.

The appellant, Mario Oliveira, appealed two lower court decisions: the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action due to a breach of the deemed undertaking rule, and a finding of contempt for non-compliance with injunctive orders concerning a confidential union member list.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the wrongful dismissal action and the contempt finding.

However, it set aside the 89-day intermittent jail sentence for contempt, replacing it with a 14-day conditional sentence (house arrest), and reduced the contempt costs from $75,000 to $50,000.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging wrongful dismissal, mental distress, defamation, and punitive damages.

The court held that the pleading failed to comply with Rules 25.06 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it contained unsupported claims for damages and lacked material facts necessary to support allegations of mental distress, punitive damages, and defamation.

The court emphasized that pleadings must include concise statements of material facts rather than bare legal assertions.

Instead of striking only certain paragraphs or ordering particulars, the court struck the entire statement of claim with leave to file a fresh pleading within 14 days.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss a civil action commenced by a former teacher alleging workplace harassment, bullying, and constructive dismissal.

The plaintiff had been a member of a bargaining unit governed by a collective agreement between the school board and the teachers’ federation.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute or whether the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration under the Labour Relations Act.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework from Weber, the court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the employment relationship governed by the collective agreement.

As the matters should have been addressed through the grievance and arbitration process or before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the court lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiff employee brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that termination provisions in an employment contract were unenforceable and did not rebut the common law presumption of reasonable notice.

The employer argued the clause validly limited termination entitlements to the minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act.

The court held that a contractual reference to employment standards legislation was sufficient to incorporate statutory minimum notice requirements and could displace the common law presumption, but found the termination provision nonetheless void because it effectively excluded the continuation of benefits required during the statutory notice period.

As the clause attempted to satisfy all termination entitlements solely through notice or pay in lieu and severance pay, it violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and was therefore null and void.

The presumption of reasonable notice at common law was not rebutted and partial summary judgment was granted in favour of the employee.