Flora Man-Wah Poon

Following an earlier summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, the court released an addendum addressing inadvertent errors, the employee's entitlement to bonus compensation during the common law notice period, mitigation deductions, and costs.

Applying the governing appellate authorities on bonus entitlement, the court held that an active employment requirement did not unambiguously remove the employee's right to damages in lieu of bonus during the notice period where the bonus was an integral part of compensation.

The court calculated the future bonus component by averaging the employee's bonuses over the prior three years, deducted a comparable vehicle benefit obtained in replacement employment, and fixed total damages at $178,879.98.

Partial indemnity costs plus disbursements were awarded in the amount of $43,879.63.

The plaintiff and defendant engaged in a joint venture to purchase, demolish, rebuild, and sell two residential properties.

Following the sale of the second property, the parties disputed the division of the net proceeds, which were paid into court.

Due to poor record-keeping and extensive cash payments, the court had to determine the total cost of construction and the respective financial advances made by each party.

The court calculated the net outstanding advances owed to each party and ordered that these amounts be paid out before the remaining funds are split 65/35 in accordance with their agreement.

The appellant appealed a decision granting summary judgment in favour of the respondent, arguing the motion judge erred in denying a second adjournment.

The motion had previously been adjourned and marked peremptory to the appellant, with instructions to either retain counsel or seek leave for a director to represent the corporation.

On the return date, the appellant had not retained counsel and provided no evidence to contradict the summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion to deny the adjournment and grant summary judgment.

The moving party sought partial summary judgment rescinding a franchise agreement under s. 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, alleging the franchisor failed to provide proper disclosure.

The respondent argued the transaction fell within the resale exemption under s. 5(7)(a)(iv), asserting the franchise was granted by an existing franchisee and not effected by or through the franchisor.

The court held that the franchisor was actively involved in effecting the grant by approving the franchisee, requiring training, structuring the lease and security arrangements, and setting the terms of the new franchise agreement.

Because the franchisor played a substantive role beyond merely consenting to the transfer, the disclosure exemption did not apply.

The franchise agreement was therefore rescinded pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Act.

Following a wrongful dismissal action in which the plaintiff claimed approximately $100,000 in damages, the defendant sought costs of roughly $99,163 on a full indemnity basis or $61,425 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and rejected the request for full indemnity costs.

The court emphasized proportionality between the amount in dispute and the costs reasonably contemplated in such an action.

Finding the hours and rates claimed excessive given that the primary compensatory claim was approximately $32,000, the court reduced the award substantially.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of HST.

The plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action alleging he had been terminated without cause and seeking damages in lieu of notice, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

The employer asserted just cause based on cumulative misconduct, including insubordination, performance deficiencies, refusal to follow safety instructions, and conduct undermining workplace relationships.

The court applied the contextual approach to just cause from McKinley v. BC Tel and considered whether the cumulative incidents demonstrated misconduct incompatible with the employment relationship.

It found that the employer had issued numerous warnings and that the employee’s conduct, including refusal to comply with safety directives and actions damaging workplace relations, justified dismissal.

The court concluded that the employer had just cause to terminate and dismissed the action.

The landlord brought a motion for summary judgment seeking unpaid rent, damages, and dismissal of the tenant’s counterclaim following termination of a commercial lease for alleged rental arrears.

The tenant denied arrears, disputed the landlord’s calculations, and brought a cross‑motion for summary judgment claiming the termination was wrongful and seeking damages.

The court applied the summary judgment framework from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch and found numerous factual disputes concerning rent calculations, alleged credits, additional charges, and whether the landlord had the right to terminate the lease.

Because a full appreciation of the evidence could not be achieved on the motion record, the matter required a trial.

Both parties’ motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed an order regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The issues included the commencement date of the lease, the commencement date for parking space rent, and the payment of a leasehold improvements allowance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the lease commenced when the demising walls were built and the premises were delivered, and that parking rent commenced when the parking spaces were turned over.

The court amended the order on consent to direct the leasehold improvements allowance to be paid directly to the sub-tenant.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.