Douglas W.J. Smyth

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee six months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal and $23,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The employer argued the trial judge erred by considering the employee's prior service, finding he mitigated his damages by accepting a lower-paying role, and awarding Superior Court costs for a judgment under $25,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the six-month notice period was reasonable given the circumstances, the employee properly mitigated his damages, and the costs award was an appropriate exercise of discretion despite the trial judge's error in including prejudgment interest to meet the Small Claims Court threshold.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw her human rights application against the personal respondent on consent.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the personal respondent removed as a party, amending the style of cause accordingly.

The plaintiff contractor, Rocksolid, brought an action for the unpaid balance of a contract to install masonry stonework on the defendants' new home.

The defendants counterclaimed for the cost of completing the work and repairing alleged deficiencies.

The court found that the defendants breached the contract by failing to supply sufficient stone, which delayed the project into the winter, and repudiated the contract by refusing to pay for the necessary heating costs and ordering the plaintiff off the jobsite.

The court also held that the defendants failed to mitigate their damages by denying the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to correct the minor deficiencies.

The plaintiff was awarded $18,530.89 on a quantum meruit basis, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant, a student with a physical disability affecting her left hand, alleged that the respondent college discriminated against her by failing to properly accommodate her needs, leading to her withdrawal from the program.

The Tribunal found that the college fulfilled both its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate by providing assistive devices, modifying evaluations, and tolerating significant absences.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant failed to fulfill her duty to cooperate in the accommodation process.

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order finding a settlement agreement enforceable.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued the settlement was signed under duress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence test was not met and the motion judge did not err in concluding the settlement, signed while the appellant was represented by counsel, was enforceable.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondents.