Jeff C. Hopkins

Following a successful motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis exceeding $32,000.

The defendants argued their conduct did not justify elevated costs and that a genuine legal issue existed regarding whether a binding settlement agreement had been reached.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court of Appeal’s guidance on when substantial indemnity costs are appropriate.

The court found the defendants’ conduct did not meet the threshold of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous behaviour warranting substantial indemnity costs.

However, costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis in a reduced amount due to excessive hours claimed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached at mediation regarding his claim for unpaid bonuses following the termination of his employment.

The defendants refused to finalize the settlement after discovering the plaintiff was working for a competitor, alleging a breach of his non-competition agreement.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement on all essential terms.

The court held that the alleged breach of the non-competition clause was not material to the plaintiff's entitlement to a bonus earned during his employment, and enforced the settlement agreement.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, sued his former employer for an unpaid bonus after being dismissed without cause.

The employment contract contained a limitation clause stating that bonuses did not accrue and were only payable if the employee was actively employed on the payout date.

The plaintiff argued the clause was contrary to public policy, inconsistently applied, and ambiguous.

The court found that while the bonus was an integral part of compensation and the entire agreement clause did not exclude prior oral representations, the limitation clause itself was unambiguous and enforceable.

The plaintiff had accepted the contract with full knowledge of its terms.

The action was dismissed.

A former employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, unpaid commissions, and punitive damages following termination after eight months of employment.

The employer asserted that the employee was dismissed for just cause due to poor performance, insubordination, failure to follow instructions, and abusive communications with colleagues and clients.

The court preferred the evidence of the employer’s witnesses and found the employee’s testimony inconsistent and self‑serving.

It held that the employee’s conduct, including repeated refusal to follow reasonable instructions and unprofessional communications, constituted just cause for summary dismissal.

The court also found that an alleged amended employment offer letter was never validly accepted and that no commission was payable because no binding sales agreement had been concluded.