Jeffrey Carl Hopkins

In a costs endorsement following a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, the court resolved remaining disputes over costs and pre-judgment interest on RSUs and stock options.

Applying section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 factors, the court found the plaintiff mostly successful and fixed partial indemnity costs at the full amount claimed.

On interest, the court declined to depart from the presumptive statutory scheme under sections 128 and 130 because no unusual or special circumstances were proven and no evidence established a higher investment return.

The court emphasized legislative objectives of certainty and consistency in prejudgment interest determinations.

An employee terminated without just cause as President and General Manager of a division sought damages for wrongful dismissal, including reasonable notice, bonus for the year worked, bonus during the notice period, and benefits during the notice period.

The motion judge awarded 17 months' salary in lieu of notice and the 2016 bonus but denied claims for bonus and benefits during the notice period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employee's appeal and dismissed the employer's cross-appeal, awarding damages for loss of bonus during the notice period and loss of benefits during the notice period, while upholding the 17-month notice period and 2016 bonus award.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal an order denying his motion to set aside a consent order for discontinuance of his wrongful dismissal action against the respondent bank.

The applicant claimed he had consented to the discontinuance with prejudice due to mistake, mental health issues, and misunderstanding.

He also alleged the judge improperly gave legal advice, that court transcripts were fabricated, and that there was a conspiracy involving the judge and others.

The chambers judge denied the extension of time, finding the appeal had no real chance of success.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's motion for review, finding the chambers judge properly exercised her discretion and that the applicant's allegations were entirely without evidentiary support.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement regarding the respondent's claim for amounts owed upon termination of employment.

The appellants argued the settlement should not be enforced due to the respondent's alleged post-termination breach of a non-compete clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged breach was not part of the settlement and that a boilerplate preamble could not reasonably be interpreted to include it.

The moving party brought a motion to rehear an appeal that had previously been dismissed in part.

The moving party argued that the appeal panel erred in law and fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as the moving party was merely attempting to re-argue the same points.

The court also prohibited the moving party from bringing further motions without leave.

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.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his wrongful dismissal claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant did not accept an amended employment contract and that his dismissal was justified for just cause due to his conduct.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the respondent improperly deducted $6,250 from the appellant's final payment in violation of s. 13 of the Employment Standards Act.

The trial judgment was varied to order payment of $6,250 to the appellant, with costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent due to mixed success.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction that enforced a non-competition clause and prevented the individual defendant from working for the corporate defendant for six weeks.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of the RJR-Macdonald test.

The court also noted that the non-competition period had already expired, rendering the matter largely moot and not of public importance.

This was a costs endorsement following a successful motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $155,295.40, while the defendants argued costs should be in the cause because the interlocutory order did not determine the ultimate merits.

The court held that the defendants' conduct was not so egregious as to justify elevated costs and emphasized that the enforceability of the non-competition clause and the existence of damage remained to be tried.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the cause in the amount of $75,000.

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.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

The applicant had amended her civil Statement of Claim to remove any allegations of Code violations and requests for Code remedies, leaving only a claim for constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant was no longer seeking a Code remedy in the civil action, s. 34(11) did not bar the application.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting the imminent hearing dates.

The defendant in a wrongful dismissal action sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its appeal from a Master's order.

The Master had refused to strike allegations in the Statement of Claim that the defendant had a practice or policy of terminating employees for just cause when none existed, to avoid providing notice or pay in lieu.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting lines of cases that remained good law following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., and no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent employee and awarding damages including amounts for broker warrants and interest on capital.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of constructive dismissal, agreeing that the employer's demand that the employee share his role as head of the corporate finance department constituted a fundamental change to his employment contract.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the damages awarded for broker warrants because they had no value on the termination date, and setting aside the award of interest on the employee's capital because the shareholder agreement expressly precluded it.