Chris Dockrill

The court issued an addendum to its previous Reasons for Decision on a motion to correct a factual error.

The court clarified that the defendant had paid the plaintiff benefits for 31 weeks and 1 day, rather than up to the hearing date as originally stated.

The plaintiff was successful on a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, being awarded $208,448.64 in damages.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendant argued costs should be denied because the action should have been pursued under the Simplified Procedure.

The court found the plaintiff beat his Rule 49 offer and that Rule 76.13 did not apply to deny costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $32,333.13, reducing the requested amount due to excessive time claimed.

The plaintiff, a wrongfully dismissed regional sales manager, sought damages including lost commissions during an 8-month common law notice period.

The defendant argued that sales plan provisions limited commission entitlement to sales booked and billed prior to active employment termination.

The court applied the O'Reilly v. IMAX Corporation two-step analysis, finding that the 2017 Sales Plan did not unambiguously remove common law rights to commissions during the notice period.

Furthermore, changes in the 2018 Sales Plan regarding termination provisions were not properly communicated, lacked consideration, and potentially violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost base salary, benefits, and commissions.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal decision.

The appellant successfully appealed and varied the judgment from the trial court.

The court awarded costs of the appeal to the appellant at $10,000 and made no order as to costs of the trial, despite the respondent having been successful at trial.

The court found that the respondent's success was very limited and that the amount recovered fell within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which justified denying trial costs under the applicable rules.

The respondent, a dental hygienist, was employed by the appellant dental practice for approximately 19 years.

The appellant required the respondent to sign successive employment agreements limiting her wrongful dismissal entitlements to the statutory minimum under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Upon termination without cause in December 2012, the respondent received only one week's salary.

The trial judge found the employment agreements unenforceable due to lack of consideration and awarded damages in lieu of reasonable notice at 15 months.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the respondent's 2005 resignation and subsequent re-hiring broke the chain of employment, limiting her entitlements to the statutory minimum measured from 2005.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the 2005 resignation and re-hiring constituted a break in the employment relationship with new consideration, thereby limiting the respondent's entitlements to 7.5 weeks of statutory notice.

During a medical malpractice trial, the defendant physician moved for production of three expert reports obtained by the plaintiff's former solicitors in a related solicitor's negligence action.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting solicitor-client or litigation privilege.

The court determined the reports were subject to litigation privilege, not solicitor-client privilege, and that the plaintiff had implicitly waived this privilege by commencing the solicitor's negligence action and failing to challenge the former solicitor's defence pleading, which referenced these reports as central to denying negligence.

The motion for production was granted.

The Plaintiffs in a medical negligence action brought a motion seeking leave to admit an expert's affidavit and discovery transcripts of two family members (one deceased, one unwell) into evidence at trial.

The court dismissed the request to admit the expert's affidavit, finding it did not comply with Rule 53 requirements for expert reports and would unfairly deprive the defence of cross-examination.

However, the court granted leave to admit the discovery transcripts of the family members under Rule 31.11(6), subject to the Plaintiffs immediately quantifying their Family Law Act claims and providing the family doctor's notes for the relevant period to the defence, to ensure fairness given the inability of the family members to testify.

Following a simplified procedure trial where the plaintiff was awarded $69,091.12, the plaintiff sought costs of $26,198.65.

The court, considering the principle of proportionality and factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the requested costs excessive for a non-complicated case.

The court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to fix costs at $15,000 inclusive.

A reporter for the Toronto Star requested access to the names of the top 100 physician billers to the Ontario Health Insurance Program for fiscal years 2008 to 2012, along with their medical specialties and billing amounts.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding that physicians' names in this context were not personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

The Ontario Medical Association and two groups of physicians appealed, arguing that physicians' names constitute personal information and are therefore exempt from disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and that the billing information, representing gross professional revenue before business expenses, did not reveal something of a personal nature about the physicians.

The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, was employed by the defendant's dental practice for 19 years.

During her employment, the employer restructured its business entities and required the plaintiff to sign three successive employment contracts, each attempting to limit her termination entitlements to the minimums under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Upon her termination without cause, the plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal.

The court held that the plaintiff's employment was continuous despite the corporate restructuring and that the employment contracts were unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration.

The court awarded the plaintiff 15 months' reasonable notice at common law, less amounts mitigated.

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

The defendant argued for partial indemnity costs and relied on an all-inclusive offer to settle.

The court found the defendant's offer to settle was not more favourable than the judgment when statutory amounts and allocations were considered.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no bad faith or proffering of false evidence by the defendant.

Costs were fixed at $40,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The trustee in bankruptcy appealed a motion judge's decision declining to find the bankrupt in contempt for refusing to execute a power of attorney regarding her interest in Croatian property.

The motion judge instead granted the trustee authority to sign the power of attorney on behalf of the bankrupt, with a minor redaction preventing assignment of powers to third parties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision, finding no error in prioritizing a practical remedy over a contempt finding, while emphasizing the seriousness of disobeying court orders.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff moved for judgment on admissions for unpaid commissions and for summary judgment on entitlement to reasonable notice, while the defendants cross‑moved for summary judgment limiting damages and dismissing certain claims.

The court granted judgment on admitted facts for $75,000 in unpaid commissions and held that the appropriate reasonable notice period at common law for an employee with approximately 11 months’ service was two months.

Because the employer had already paid two months’ salary and partial benefits continuation, only an additional six weeks of benefits was owed.

The claim against the parent holding company was dismissed and the plaintiff’s human rights discrimination claim was summarily dismissed for lack of evidence.

The remaining dispute regarding the calculation of additional commission entitlements was left for trial.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend a statement of claim in a shareholder oppression action under the Business Corporations Act and to add additional defendants.

The proposed amendments included clarification of existing claims, allegations of post‑litigation asset transfers, and claims involving fraudulent preferences, conspiracy, and diversion of corporate opportunities.

The court held that most amendments were legally tenable and arose from facts discovered after the action had been set down for trial, and therefore should be permitted.

However, amendments alleging misconduct by the defendants in the conduct of the litigation were found irrelevant to the pleaded causes of action and contrary to proper pleading rules.

Leave to amend was granted except for those specific allegations.

Multiple motions arose from contentious guardianship litigation concerning decision-making for an incapable elderly individual under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicants, former co‑guardians of the person, sought reimbursement of substantial legal costs from the guardianship estate for litigation undertaken during disputes over medical treatment and end‑of‑life care.

The respondents opposed the claim and sought their own costs arising from the applicants’ repeated urgent motions and alleged interference with medical decision‑making.

The court found the applicants’ advocacy excessive, confrontational, and largely unsuccessful, providing minimal benefit to the incapable person.

The applicants’ request for indemnification from the estate was dismissed, and they were ordered to indemnify the respondents for significant costs relating to the contentious proceedings.

The plaintiffs and defendants, two brothers and their respective holding companies, engaged in a complex corporate divorce involving a transportation business, ProNorth.

The court determined that the brothers were equal 50/50 shareholders in the holding company, rejecting the defendant's claim of a 62/38 split.

The court found the defendant brother engaged in oppressive conduct by wrongfully excluding the plaintiff from a shareholders' meeting and removing him as a director.

As a remedy, the court ordered the defendant to purchase the plaintiff's shares at a fair value of $4,455,000, based on an en bloc valuation of $8.91 million.

The court also resolved disputes over several jointly owned properties, ordering the defendant to purchase the plaintiff's interests in properties used by the business, and directing the partition and sale of others.

The court awarded the plaintiff $180,000 in damages for exclusion from management, offset by $105,000 awarded to the company for the plaintiff's wrongful detention of a corporate aircraft.

Finally, the court found the company's accountant breached his fiduciary duty to the plaintiff by swearing an affidavit contrary to the corporate records, awarding nominal damages of $100.