Geoff Breen

Following a successful summary judgment motion awarding the plaintiff 20.8 months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The defendant argued for $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the plaintiff’s non-compliant offer to settle as a relevant factor under Rule 57.01 but held that the defendant’s conduct did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court also rejected using counsel’s unreduced notional hourly rate to inflate the award.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The plaintiff, a 63-year-old machinist with 26 years of service, was terminated without cause due to restructuring.

He brought a motion for summary judgment seeking 24 months' reasonable notice.

The defendant argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by not using outplacement services and intending to retire.

The court found the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate and awarded 21 months' reasonable notice, reduced by a 1% contingency for the likelihood of finding future employment, resulting in a final notice period of 20.8 months.

The plaintiff, a 63-year-old machinist with 26 years of service, was terminated without cause due to restructuring.

The employer provided working notice and severance pay equivalent to approximately four months.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking 24 months of reasonable notice.

The employer argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by not using outplacement services and intending to retire.

The court found the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate and awarded a reasonable notice period of 21 months, reduced to 20.8 months to account for a 1% contingency of finding comparable employment before the end of the notice period.

An employee dismissed without cause brought a summary judgment motion seeking determination of the reasonable notice period for wrongful dismissal damages.

The court applied the Bardal factors including age, length of service, character of employment, and availability of comparable employment.

For a 39‑year‑old employee with 17 years of service whose position had been replaced by automation, the court fixed reasonable notice at 14 months.

Because the motion was decided before the expiry of the notice period, the court addressed the treatment of mitigation and adopted the “trust and accounting” approach, requiring the employee to account for any mitigation income earned during the remaining notice period.

The employee’s mitigation efforts to date were found to be reasonable.