Chelsea Packman

Following a successful wrongful dismissal claim in which the plaintiff was entirely successful, the court considered costs.

The plaintiff sought partial costs of $80,000 (with substantial costs calculated at approximately $115,000) plus disbursements.

The court found that the matter was not complex and that the defendant had unreasonably delayed proceedings, including failure to cooperate in scheduling discoveries and providing late answers to undertakings.

The court awarded counsel fees of $50,000 plus HST and disbursements of $3,846.70 plus HST, declining to award the full amount sought given the short and uncomplicated nature of the trial.

A long-serving employee brought a claim for constructive wrongful dismissal against his employer, a municipal taxi licensing commission.

The plaintiff alleged that following a change in board leadership in December 2019, he was subjected to a campaign of belittlement, micromanagement, and harassment that created a toxic work environment, ultimately forcing him to take stress leave.

The employer denied wrongful dismissal, arguing the plaintiff quit and defended its actions by alleging numerous instances of misconduct and dereliction of duty.

The court found the plaintiff credible and established that he was constructively dismissed due to the employer's breach of the implied duty to treat him with respect and decency.

The court awarded 24 months' notice plus aggravated damages.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim to add a $100,000 defamation claim just days before a scheduled simplified procedure trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to adequately explain their delay in seeking the amendment.

The court held that adding a defamation claim would materially alter the factual framework, require further discovery, cause significant delay, and potentially push the trial beyond the five-day limit for simplified procedure actions, resulting in non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The applicant property owner brought a motion for leave to amend its notice of application regarding a disputed agreement of purchase and sale.

The proposed amendments sought to add a fixed closing date and to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that the respondent developer had obtained in a separate action.

The court granted leave to add the fixed closing date, as the respondent alleged no prejudice.

However, the court refused leave to add the request to discharge the CPL, finding that the proposed amendment failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and constituted an improper collateral attack on an order made in a separate proceeding.