Jeff Hopkins

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment following the termination of his employment while on medical leave.

The defendant failed to file a Statement of Defence and was noted in default.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the 60-year-old plaintiff, who had 30 years of service and a disability, 24 months' pay in lieu of notice.

The claims for lost benefits, vacation pay, and costs were adjourned for further evidence.

Following a successful appeal by the plaintiff that varied the original summary judgment, the Court of Appeal referred the issue of costs for the original motion back to the motion judge.

The plaintiff sought $54,000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle that entitled him to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court reviewed the costs outline, found some entries excessive, and awarded the plaintiff all-inclusive costs of $42,000.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $43,562.00 following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued for no costs due to divided success, or a reduced amount.

The court analyzed the six issues raised on the motion and found the plaintiff was the more successful party on the major issues of reasonable notice and the 2016 bonus.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering what is fair and reasonable, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000.00.

The plaintiff, a former President and General Manager, brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding 17 months' reasonable notice.

The court also found the plaintiff was entitled to a pro-rated bonus for 2016 based on a historical average percentage, but dismissed claims for bonuses during the notice period, loss of benefits, and aggravated or punitive damages.

The court found the plaintiff had reasonably mitigated his damages and ordered a hybrid trust and accounting approach for the remainder of the notice period.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The applicant argued the civil proceeding was taking too long, and the respondents consented to the re-activation.

The Tribunal declined to re-activate the application, finding that the significant overlap in issues and requested remedies between the two proceedings warranted continued deferral despite the parties' consent.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the human rights application, arguing the Tribunal lost jurisdiction when the original applicant died and that the Trustee Act does not permit an estate to carry a human rights application.

The respondents alternatively requested deferral pending a concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that human rights claims are statutory, not common law actions, and do not abate upon death.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application because the civil action sought only pay in lieu of notice and did not allege human rights violations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

Following the applicant's death, the respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal deferred this issue pending confirmation of the estate representative.

The Tribunal also considered whether the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to an ongoing wrongful dismissal civil action.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not apply because the civil action did not allege or seek remedies for a breach of the Code.