3 total
The successful plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action was awarded $269,250 in costs and lump-sum pre-judgment interest.
The Plaintiff, David Bain, sought costs and pre-judgment interest following a successful wrongful dismissal trial against UBS Securities Canada Inc. and UBS Securities LLC, where he recovered over $2.5 million.
The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, fixed partial indemnity costs for the Plaintiff at $225,000 plus HST of $29,250 and disbursements of $15,000, totaling $269,250.
The court also determined that pre-judgment interest should be calculated on a lump sum basis, awarding $122,756.03, given the Defendants' failure to provide salary continuance or a bonus upon termination.
OSC insider trading and tipping findings upheld against four appellants but overturned against one due to factual errors.
The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding them liable for insider trading and tipping contrary to s. 76 of the Securities Act.
The Commission found that a corporate lawyer tipped an investment advisor about three corporate transactions, who then tipped others in a chain.
The Divisional Court upheld the findings against the lawyer and three of the investment advisors, finding the Commission's inferences from circumstantial evidence were reasonable.
However, the court allowed the appeal of one investment advisor at the end of the chain, finding the Commission made factual errors in concluding he ought reasonably to have known the information came from an insider.
The sanctions against the unsuccessful appellants were upheld.
Application to quash police discipline proceedings dismissed; Charter sections 7 and 11 not engaged.
The applicant, an OPP officer facing workplace misconduct proceedings, brought an application for judicial review seeking to quash or stay the proceedings.
He argued that the disciplinary process under the Police Services Act violated his rights under sections 7 and 11 of the Charter by failing to provide an independent and unbiased tribunal.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that section 11 applies only to criminal matters, not employment discipline, and that section 7 is not engaged because there is no constitutional right to practice a profession unfettered by regulatory rules.
The court also declined to order the police association to fund the applicant's legal counsel.
