6 total
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial, finding the delay was largely due to counsel inadvertence and caused no actual prejudice.
The court considered a motion by the plaintiffs to extend the time to set their action down for trial under Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiffs, alleging wrongful dismissal and related claims, faced delays due to both parties’ conduct, changes in counsel, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court found the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, much of which was attributable to inadvertence and file management issues at counsel’s firm, and that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.
The court granted the extension and imposed a timetable for the remaining steps.
Wrongful dismissal claim dismissed as the plaintiff was employed under a fixed-term contract that expired.
The plaintiff sought damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing that his employment with the defendant municipality was permanent and indefinite despite being hired under a contract with an expected duration of two years.
The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was employed under a fixed-term contract that was extended four times before expiring.
The court found no ambiguity in the employment agreement or the extension notices, concluding that the plaintiff was employed under a fixed-term contract.
As the contract simply expired, there was no wrongful dismissal, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
Statement of defence struck due to defendant's repeated failure to attend discoveries and comply with court orders.
The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence after the defendant repeatedly delayed and ultimately failed to attend scheduled examinations for discovery.
Despite a prior court order mandating the completion of discoveries by a set date and warning of consequences for further non-attendance, the defendant refused to proceed unless it could examine the plaintiff first, contrary to the plaintiff's notice of examination.
The court found the defendant's conduct to be a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings and struck the statement of defence pursuant to Rules 34.15(1)(b) and 60.12.
Motion for costs of discontinued action dismissed due to binding settlement agreement without costs.
The plaintiff commenced an action which was subsequently discontinued following an email exchange between counsel.
The defendant then brought a motion under Rule 23.05(1) for costs of the discontinued action, arguing the discontinuance was unilateral.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the email correspondence constituted a binding settlement agreement that included the discontinuance of the action but did not include any term for the payment of costs.
The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs for successfully opposing the motion.
Employer repudiated employment contract by demanding a release in exchange for contractual severance pay.
The plaintiff employee was terminated without cause and the employer refused to pay her contractual two weeks' severance unless she signed a full and final release.
The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing the employer repudiated the employment contract and that the termination provisions violated the Employment Standards Act.
The court found that the employer's demand for a release in exchange for contractual entitlements constituted a repudiation of the contract, entitling the plaintiff to common law reasonable notice.
The court awarded 6 months' notice, totaling $16,807.52 in damages.
The court dismissed the defendant's motion for security for costs because the plaintiff demonstrated a good chance of success on the merits.
The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs, asserting the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.
The court found that the plaintiff was indeed ordinarily resident outside Ontario based on his significant time spent in Mexico.
However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a good chance of success on the merits of his claim for wrongful dismissal or dependent contractor damages, and the court concluded that the justice of the case did not require an order for security for costs.
