Danesh Rana

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's constructive dismissal claim with leave to amend to provide full particulars, and sought a protective order over a diversity survey and an ombudsperson report.

The court dismissed the motion for particulars, finding the defendant had already filed a statement of defence and the existing pleadings provided sufficient detail to know the case to meet.

The court also denied the protective order, ruling it was premature and that the documents were relevant to the plaintiff's allegations of systemic gender discrimination and a toxic work environment.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate amount of costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff following a wrongful dismissal action under the simplified procedure.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the case, the offers to settle, and the applicable rules, ultimately awarding the plaintiff the maximum costs permitted under Rule 76.12.1, plus reasonable disbursements, due to the defendant’s unreasonable settlement position and litigation conduct.

The court considered a wrongful dismissal claim by Jesse Lachapelle against St. Laurent Automotive Group Inc. following his layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed on March 24, 2020, and was entitled to seven months’ reasonable notice, with credit for inducement and the impact of the pandemic on employment prospects.

The court rejected the employer’s arguments regarding force majeure and found that the plaintiff was not required to accept substantially altered terms of employment.

The plaintiff was not entitled to aggravated, bad faith, or punitive damages, as the employer’s conduct was not malicious or high-handed.

The court calculated damages based on the plaintiff’s actual earnings and benefits, and dismissed the claim for a construction retention bonus.

The respondents brought a motion to strike two expert reports and related affidavit paragraphs filed by the applicant in a right-of-way dispute.

The court found that one expert's impartiality was compromised by reviewing settlement communications, and the other expert failed to comply with Rule 53.03 requirements for expert reports and refused cross-examination.

The court granted the motion, striking both expert reports and the referring affidavit paragraphs, and awarded costs to the respondents.

The applicant moved to stay garnishment proceedings commenced by the respondent to collect unpaid costs awarded in an SDRCC arbitration.

The applicant argued that its application to set aside the arbitral award automatically stayed collection under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that arbitration awards are not subject to the automatic stay provisions of the Rules and that the applicant failed to establish grounds for an interim stay.

The court directed the garnishee bank to pay the garnished funds to the respondent.

The applicants sought to set aside three arbitral awards under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, alleging procedural unfairness regarding damages quantification and witness exclusion.

The respondents sought to enforce the awards.

The court dismissed the applicants' motion, affirming the narrow scope of judicial review for arbitral awards under s. 46, which focuses on procedural fairness rather than substantive errors.

The court found the arbitrator's reasons adequate and that the applicants were treated fairly, despite their disagreement with the arbitrator's evidentiary and damages assessment decisions.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by The Canada Soccer Association Incorporated (Canada Soccer) for an interim stay of an arbitral award and a cross-motion by Association de Soccer de Brossard (ASB) to enforce the award.

The court had previously dismissed Canada Soccer's motion and granted ASB's cross-motion.

In this endorsement, ASB sought substantial indemnity costs, while Canada Soccer argued for its own costs due to alleged bad faith by ASB or deferral of costs to the application judge.

The court found no evidence of bad faith by ASB and declined to defer costs.

It awarded ASB partial indemnity costs up to the date of its Rule 49.10 offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $65,367.25, to be paid within 30 days.

The Canadian Soccer Association (Canada Soccer) moved for an interim stay of an arbitral award that ordered it to grant Association de Soccer de Brossard (ASB) a National Youth Club License.

ASB brought a cross-motion to enforce the arbitral award.

The court dismissed Canada Soccer's motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as its grounds for setting aside the award related to the merits of the arbitrator's decision, not procedural fairness.

The court also found no irreparable harm to Canada Soccer and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured ASB.

ASB's cross-motion to enforce the arbitral award was granted.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff had been locked out of its leased commercial premises for unpaid rent, and the premises were subsequently destroyed by an accidental fire.

The court found the defendants met their initial burden of showing the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff failed to provide robust financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity or demonstrate a high chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $45,000 as security for costs.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellants were successful.

The Court of Appeal invited written submissions regarding the costs of the summary judgment motion below.

The appellants submitted their costs, while the respondent declined to provide any.

The court awarded the appellants their costs in responding to the motion for summary judgment, fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that dismissed their action against one of the individual defendants, Paolo Messina, following an altercation at a waterpark where two minor appellants were assaulted.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge made several errors of law and fact, including improperly reversing the onus of proof, failing to draw an adverse inference from the respondent's failure to file an affidavit, and relying on inadmissible hearsay evidence.

The court emphasized that the moving party bears the initial evidentiary burden in summary judgment motions and reiterated the caution against granting partial summary judgment due to the risk of inconsistent findings.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the motion dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to vary an existing interlocutory injunction to explicitly prohibit the defendants from selling a new software product, FireWire.

The plaintiff alleged that FireWire, like its predecessor FireCat, contained source code and database schema copied from the plaintiff's SilverEye software.

The court found a substantial issue to be tried regarding the alleged copying and varied the injunction to include FireWire in the Canadian market.

The court declined to expand the injunction to the United States market, finding no irreparable harm.

The plaintiff software developer sought an interlocutory injunction against a former employee and her company, alleging they breached confidentiality agreements and infringed copyright by developing competing software using the plaintiff's source code.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from the loss of its Canadian market share.

The court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from selling their software to new clients in Canada pending trial, but allowed them to continue servicing existing clients to balance the convenience and maintain the status quo.

The defendants were also ordered to provide a monthly accounting of revenues.

The plaintiff, Knowmadics, sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, Lisa Cinnamon and LDX Inc., from offering for sale and selling certain software ("cover app") and requiring its removal from their website.

Knowmadics alleged copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality agreements regarding software developed while Cinnamon was an employee and contractor.

The defendants claimed prior ownership of the cover app.

The court applied the three-part test for an interim injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding ownership and NDA infringement, irreparable harm to Knowmadics due to customer confusion and devaluation of investment, and that the balance of convenience favored Knowmadics.

The motion for interim relief was granted.

The applicants sought judicial review to set aside an arbitration award that ordered the applicant son to pay his respondent father over $11 million to dissolve their gas bar partnership.

The applicants alleged procedural unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias by the arbitrator, raising issues regarding the non-attendance of a party, the removal of a party from the style of cause, the rules of procedure used, the treatment of expert testimony, and the refusal to admit post-arbitration financial evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed all grounds of the application, finding no procedural irregularities or bias on the part of the arbitrator, and noting that the applicants themselves were responsible for their expert witness not testifying.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and subsequently terminated his benefits and employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the matter by closing the applicant's file.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB had not addressed the specific allegations of failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination.

The insured sought a declaration that the insurer was required to pay increased rebuilding costs following a total-loss residential fire where reconstruction required upgrades mandated by the Ontario Building Code.

The insurer relied on a policy exclusion denying coverage for increased costs caused by the operation of any by-law regulating construction.

The court held that the exclusion clause applied only to municipal by-laws and not to provincial regulations such as the Building Code.

Because the increased costs arose from Building Code requirements rather than a by-law, the exclusion did not apply.

The court ordered the insurer to pay the additional costs associated with the mandated upgrades.

A construction company brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages after its employee fraudulently forged company cheques and deposited them into a third party’s bank account.

The employee forged signatures on twelve cheques and deposited them into the cohabiting partner’s account, from which most funds were withdrawn.

The court held that the tort of conversion is one of strict liability and that depositing funds belonging to another into an account without legal entitlement constitutes conversion, regardless of the account holder’s innocence or lack of knowledge of the fraud.

Summary judgment was granted against both the employee and the account holder for the remaining loss.

The court also declared that the employee’s liability arose from fraud and misappropriation while acting in a fiduciary capacity and would not be released in bankruptcy.

The insured was sued for negligent misrepresentation in a seller property information statement, with the plaintiff claiming damages for repair costs and health consequences.

The insurer appealed an application judge's finding that it had a duty to defend the entire action under the insured's homeowner's policy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the health consequences constituted 'Bodily Injury' triggering a duty to defend, rejecting the argument that the claim was merely derivative of the economic loss claim.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the insurer should not be responsible for 100 per cent of the defence costs since the covered claims represented only a small portion of the total damages claimed.