Janice B. Payne

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety, or alternatively, to strike specific paragraphs.

The plaintiff, a former union president, claimed constructive dismissal, breach of contract, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and defamation following a prolonged conflict with the defendants.

The court declined to strike the claim as a whole, finding it provided a logical presentation of the conflict and could be responded to.

However, the court struck several specific paragraphs that contained evidence, irrelevant historical facts, or immaterial references to non-parties, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal following an asset sale of the business.

He claimed entitlement to 12 months' notice under his employment agreement due to a change in control.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by unreasonably rejecting an offer of comparable employment from the purchasing company.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had fully mitigated his damages through earnings generated by his own corporation during the notice period.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant brought an eve-of-trial motion to adjourn the trial and compel further disclosure and discovery regarding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts through his corporation.

The plaintiff had previously answered 'zero' when asked about personal income from the corporation, but recently produced a ledger showing significant shareholder loan repayments.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding the plaintiff had an ongoing obligation to correct misleading discovery answers.

The court ordered limited additional documentary production and a brief discovery, but declined to adjourn the trial, directing that the discovery be completed before the trial commenced the following week.

Self-represented long-term disability beneficiaries sought leave to appeal a sanction order from the Superior Court of Justice in the Nortel Networks CCAA proceedings.

The applicants challenged their binding status under the 2009 Representation Order for Disabled Employees and the 2010 Employee Settlement Agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the stringent test for leave in CCAA proceedings was not met.

The proposed appeal lacked merit, the applicants were bound by the settlement agreement, and further delays in the protracted litigation were to be avoided.

The court also rejected a late-filed notice of constitutional question challenging sections 6(1) and 11 of the CCAA.

The plaintiff commenced an action for wrongful dismissal and served a Rule 49 offer to settle early in the litigation.

The defendant accepted the offer two years later, shortly before trial, agreeing to pay costs on a partial indemnity scale up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity scale thereafter.

The parties could not agree on the quantum of costs.

The court assessed the plaintiff's bill of costs, noting some excessive time docketed for discovery and pre-trial preparation, and fixed total costs at $119,123.45.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment alleging constructive dismissal after the employer replaced her during a medical leave and offered a significantly reduced position at lower pay.

The court held that the employer had already fundamentally altered the employment relationship by hiring a permanent replacement and offering only a demoted role, constituting constructive dismissal.

Summary judgment was granted on liability and reasonable notice was fixed at 15 months, including salary, benefits, and bonus entitlement.

However, genuine issues requiring trial remained regarding aggravated damages and alleged discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal subject to mitigation, while the remaining claims could proceed to further adjudication.

Following a successful Rule 21 motion striking claims against an individual defendant in a wrongful dismissal action, the court addressed costs after the plaintiff requested an opportunity to make submissions.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, relying in part on an offer to settle proposing dismissal of the claim without costs.

The plaintiff argued the defendant was not fully successful because leave to amend had been granted and contended that efforts to resolve the motion and proposed amendments justified either no costs or costs in the cause.

The court held that the defendant was the successful party on the motion and that the usual rule that costs follow the event applied.

The previously ordered costs of $12,500 payable by the plaintiff to the defendant were confirmed as fair and reasonable.