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.