D. Barry Prentice

The appellant, Stericycle ULC, appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration that it, rather than Daniels Sharpsmart Canada Limited, was the primary supplier for Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under a public tendering process.

Stericycle argued that the application judge erred in contract interpretation, allowing impermissible bid repair, and failing to properly apply the duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the "Six Month Provision" or the contract start date.

The court also found no breach of the duty of good faith or honest performance by HealthPRO or PHSA, as their actions were consistent with the contract's purpose and Stericycle's reasonable expectations.

The plaintiffs were successful in their wrongful dismissal actions against the defendant and sought full indemnity costs capped at $50,000 each under Rule 76.12.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant argued the costs claimed were disproportionate and excessive.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding the cases were simple, materially identical, and handled by common counsel, which should have resulted in substantial efficiencies.

The court rejected the claim for full indemnity costs and awarded a total of $50,000 inclusive of HST for both claims combined, plus disbursements, resulting in $26,117.08 for each plaintiff.

The plaintiffs, two long-term employees, were laid off by the defendant employer in early 2020 due to supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in China.

The plaintiffs treated the lay-offs as constructive dismissals and brought summary judgment motions for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer did not have an implied right to lay off the employees, and even if it did, the lay-offs exceeded 35 weeks, resulting in deemed terminations under the Employment Standards Act.

The court awarded both plaintiffs 22 months of reasonable notice.

The applicant, an incumbent biomedical waste disposal provider, challenged the award of a new primary supplier contract to a competitor.

The applicant alleged that the respondents engaged in bid repair and breached their duty of fairness by allowing the competitor to delay the implementation of services and assisting them with regulatory approvals post-award.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness to unsuccessful bidders ended once the contract was awarded, and that the post-award communications were operational in nature and did not constitute bid repair.

The court also rejected the argument that the respondents had irrevocably elected the applicant as the primary supplier by utilizing their services during the transition period.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 31.03(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to examine a different corporate representative for discovery rather than the employee selected by the plaintiff.

The dispute arose in the context of a family and corporate conflict involving claims for wrongful dismissal and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court held that the examining party has a prima facie right to choose the corporate representative to be examined, subject only to limited judicial intervention where the selection is inappropriate or oppressive.

The defendants failed to demonstrate that the chosen employee lacked sufficient knowledge, could not inform himself, or that the examination would be unduly oppressive.

The motion to substitute the witness was dismissed and costs were awarded against the moving parties.