I. St. John

Following a three‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed, the defendant municipality sought costs of approximately $194,144.88.

The court found that the materials provided were insufficient to justify the amount sought and appeared to include costs related to other actions that had been settled before trial.

Because the record lacked sufficient information to assess the requested amount, the court declined to determine a specific figure.

Costs of the wrongful dismissal claim were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, with the amount to be assessed pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

A municipal administrator brought an action for wrongful dismissal alleging he had been hired under a three‑year fixed‑term contract as CAO/Clerk of a municipality.

The municipality asserted that the appointment was temporary and that services were provided through the plaintiff’s consulting company on an interim basis while a permanent replacement was sought.

The court rejected the authenticity and reliability of an alleged email exchange said to form a fixed‑term employment contract and found that the municipal by‑laws and surrounding evidence demonstrated a temporary acting appointment.

The court further concluded the services were provided through the plaintiff’s corporation as an independent contractor arrangement.

As the temporary engagement ended when the municipality appointed a permanent replacement, no notice or damages were owed.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction restraining union members from blockading its premises and engaging in intimidation and other unlawful conduct during a labour dispute.

Evidence established that picketers blocked trucks carrying materials from entering or leaving the employer’s facility and intimidated employees who continued working at residential construction sites.

The court held that picketing is lawful only when it constitutes communication and not obstruction or blockade.

The deliberate obstruction of property access and threats against workers constituted tortious and unlawful conduct, satisfying the requirements for interlocutory relief.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring the employer.

An interlocutory injunction was granted establishing an ingress/egress protocol and prohibiting tortious and unlawful conduct by union members.