David House

The plaintiff credit union brought four actions for repayment of commercial loans against the defendants.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraud and misconduct by a former employee of the plaintiff who negotiated the loans.

The plaintiff moved to strike the amended statements of defence and counterclaim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants' pleadings contained sweeping conclusory allegations devoid of supporting material facts, failing to meet the requirements of Rule 25.06.

The pleadings were struck with leave to amend.

The moving defendants brought a motion for production of documents relating to two alleged settlements: one between the plaintiff and a co-defendant, and another comprehensive settlement allegedly reached among all parties.

The court dismissed the request for communications between the plaintiff and the co-defendant, as both parties denied reaching a settlement and the communications were protected by settlement privilege.

However, the court granted production of communications purportedly made in furtherance of the alleged comprehensive settlement, applying the exception to settlement privilege that allows disclosure to prove the existence of a disputed settlement.

The defendant, Greg Chew, brought a motion to vary a $50,000 costs award made against the defendants following their unsuccessful motion to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel.

Chew argued that the costs should be apportioned severally, making him liable for only 25%.

The court found it had jurisdiction to amend the order under Rule 59.06(1) because the issue of joint and several liability was not adjudicated in the original endorsement.

Applying the principles from Meady v. Greyhound, the court held that the defendants acted jointly in pursuing the disqualification motion and that no exceptions to the general rule of joint and several liability applied.

The motion to vary was dismissed, and the original order was amended to expressly state that the defendants' liability for costs is joint and several.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judge's finding that the respondent employee had adequately mitigated his damages following wrongful termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision was well supported by the evidence.

The respondent, who was in his fifties with limited education and had worked for the appellant for 19 years, faced diminished re-employment prospects, exacerbated by the lack of a reference letter and accusations of wrongdoing.

The Court held that the respondent made reasonable efforts to find comparable employment and was not obliged to accept non-comparable positions.

The plaintiff, a long‑term hospitality employee with approximately nineteen and a half years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated following the purchase of a minority interest in a separate bar.

The employer alleged abandonment of employment, conflict of interest, dishonesty, intoxicated calls to the employer, and after‑acquired cause including drinking on duty and mismanagement of inventory.

The court found the plaintiff had not abandoned his employment and that the employer effectively terminated him by presenting a letter demanding resignation and release.

The court rejected the alleged just cause and after‑acquired cause allegations, finding the evidence insufficient and the bars were not competing businesses.

Applying common law notice principles, the court awarded twenty months’ reasonable notice, subject to mitigation.