Jim Anstey

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim.

The plaintiff opposed this motion and sought to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim for inconvenience damages.

The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the wrongful dismissal claim, including whether the plaintiff was dismissed and the reasonableness of mitigation efforts, which required a trial.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Conversely, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the defendants' counterclaim for inconvenience damages, as no evidence supported it, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, dismissing the counterclaim.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The defendants sought $45,380.73 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $9,000.

The court fixed costs at an all-inclusive sum of $17,500, payable forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01(1), a Rule 49 offer, and the principle from Boucher v. Public Accountant Council for Ontario that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than solely reflecting the successful litigant's actual incurred costs.

This was a motion for summary judgment by eight of the named defendants (six holding companies and two individual directors) in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendants sought to dismiss claims against them, arguing they were not 'common and related employers' and that the corporate veil should not be pierced for the individual directors.

The court applied principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin for summary judgment motions, and considered the common employer doctrine and personal liability of corporate officers.

The motion was granted, dismissing the claims against the individual directors due to no evidence of fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or want of authority, and against the holding companies as they did not exercise effective control over the plaintiff's employment.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking additional production and answers to undertakings, the court addressed costs.

The defendants were successful and sought substantial partial indemnity costs after incurring over $17,000 in legal fees.

The court held that although the defendants were entitled to costs, the circumstances justified only a modest award because certain factual concessions were made after the cross-examinations that contributed to the dispute.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $4,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

Payment of the award was deferred pending determination of a related summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for further production of corporate and financial records to resist a pending summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff sought to establish that multiple related corporate defendants were his common employer.

The defendants admitted to joint control and administration, and the operating companies undertook joint and several liability for any damages awarded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested disclosure was disproportionate and unnecessary given the defendants' admissions.

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the medical care provided to their deceased family member and the subsequent failure of the Office of the Chief Coroner to hold an inquest.

The Tribunal considered preliminary issues regarding the timeliness of the application and the naming of personal respondents.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period for all respondents except the Office of the Chief Coroner, and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed against all respondents other than the Office of the Chief Coroner.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents associated with the Office of the Chief Coroner on consent.