Damien Buntsma

The plaintiff was successful in her wrongful dismissal action and sought costs of $32,509.05, calculated on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of an unaccepted offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive due to alleged double lawyering and overdone legal service, suggesting an award of $15,451.50.

The court found the plaintiff's costs claim to be fair, reasonable, and within the reasonable expectations of the defendant, awarding the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

The court found the plaintiff was a dependent contractor from 1994 to 2004 and an employee thereafter, entitling her to a 21-month reasonable notice period based on a 23-year relationship.

The employer's termination clause was held unenforceable for failing to maintain statutory benefits during the notice period.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for pay in lieu of notice, loss of benefits, and reimbursement for unlawful wage deductions made under an unpaid vacation program.

The plaintiffs sued for specific performance of an abortive real estate transaction after failing to close on the scheduled date due to a loss of financing.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the defendants did not agree to extend the closing date and were not acting in bad faith by insisting on the contractually agreed closing date.

The plaintiffs were not ready, willing, and able to close, and the defendants validly terminated the agreement and forfeited the deposit.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The plaintiffs advanced funds to the defendants for a real estate investment.

When the investment failed, the plaintiffs obtained a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the defendants' personal residence.

To facilitate the sale of the residence, the parties agreed to discharge the CPL and hold $600,000 from the sale proceeds in court pending a further motion.

The plaintiffs moved to keep the funds in court under Rule 45.02, while the defendants sought their release.

The court found that the plaintiffs established a right to a specific fund, a serious issue to be tried, and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the funds.

The plaintiffs' motion was granted.