Jocelyn Duquette

The respondent provided maintenance services to ten condominium corporations under two maintenance contracts.

The appellants terminated the winter maintenance contract but delayed notifying the respondent for several months to avoid jeopardizing completion of the summer contract.

The respondent performed extra unpaid work during this period in hopes of contract renewal.

The trial judge found the appellants breached the duty of honest performance by withholding termination information and accepting the unpaid work while knowing the contract would not be renewed.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the duty of honest performance does not require disclosure of termination decisions or restrict the exercise of contractual termination rights, and that the appellants' conduct, while potentially dishonourable, did not rise to the level of breach required under the good faith performance standard established in Bhasin v. Hrynew.

The plaintiff contractor sued to enforce a construction lien after abandoning a home renovation project.

The defendant homeowners counterclaimed for breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation, seeking damages for the cost of completing the work and repairing deficiencies.

The court found that the contractor fundamentally breached the contract by abandoning the job and failing to deliver the promised quality of work.

The homeowners' claim for pre-contract misrepresentation was dismissed as unproven and redundant.

The court assessed the cost of completion and repair, offset it against the unpaid balance of the adjusted contract price, and awarded the homeowners $64,607.83 on their counterclaim.

The contractor's lien was ordered vacated.

The plaintiff, a snow removal contractor, sued the defendant condominium corporations and their property manager for breach of contract after they terminated a winter maintenance agreement.

Although the contract contained a 10-day termination clause, the defendants decided to terminate the contract in the spring but actively deceived the plaintiff into believing the contract would be renewed so he would continue performing summer maintenance and extra 'freebie' work.

The court applied the organizing principle of good faith and the duty of honest performance from Bhasin v. Hrynew, finding that the defendants' active deception constituted a breach of contract.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost profits, equipment lease costs, and an unpaid invoice.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim to correct a misnomer, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, arguing the defendants unreasonably opposed the motion.

The defendants argued they should receive costs or costs should be in the cause due to the plaintiff's delay.

The court found the plaintiff's requested costs reasonable, noting the defendants should have consented to the misnomer correction, and awarded the plaintiff $2,551.31 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Christopher Callow, brought a motion to amend his Statement of Claim to correct the name of the plaintiff to his corporation, C.M. Callow Inc., four years after the cause of action arose.

The defendants opposed, arguing the limitation period had expired and it was an attempt to add a new party.

The court found that the defendants were aware the contract was with the corporation and would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

Applying the doctrine of misnomer, the court granted the motion to amend the pleadings, finding special circumstances existed to justify the correction.

Following an application concerning enforcement of a condominium declaration restricting units to single family residence use, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicants had been largely successful on the underlying application, obtaining findings that the condominium corporation was obligated to enforce its declaration and that certain grandfathering provisions in a proposed rule were unreasonable.

The court held that litigation was necessary to compel compliance with the declaration and that the applicants achieved the substantive relief sought.

Considering the factors under rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including settlement offers and litigation conduct, the court awarded costs jointly and severally against the corporation and a director who had breached his statutory duties.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff previously succeeded on a Rule 21 motion declaring a termination clause in the employment contract void for non‑compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court addressed the quantum of costs arising from that motion.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the indemnity principle, the court held that partial indemnity costs were appropriate because any settlement offer relating to the broader litigation could not yet be considered.

While most hours and rates claimed were reasonable given the complexity and importance of the issue, some adjustments were warranted.

The court fixed the plaintiff’s costs of the motion and determined a conditional additional amount should substantial indemnity later be awarded by the trial judge.

The applicants, unit owners at Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 111, sought a declaration that a proposed rule defining 'single family residence' and its grandfathering provisions were unreasonable and inconsistent with the condominium's declaration.

They also sought an oppression remedy against the board and a declaration that the board president breached his duties as a director.

The court found the ten-year grandfathering provision for existing owners to be unreasonable and inconsistent with the declaration, invalidating the rule.

The court dismissed the oppression claim against the board but found that the board president breached his standard of care as a director by actively undermining the board's efforts to enforce the declaration and acting in bad faith.

A motion raised a question of law concerning the enforceability of a termination clause in an employment contract under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The clause limited termination compensation to base salary and excluded commissions and the continuation of benefits.

The court held the clause violated statutory minimum standards because it attempted to exclude the employer’s obligation to maintain benefit contributions during the statutory notice period under ss. 60 and 61 of the Act.

The court further interpreted s. 64 of the Act and held that an employer’s payroll for severance eligibility includes the wages of all employees, not only those in Ontario.

The termination clause was declared void and the employer remained liable to pay statutory severance.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion to determine two questions of law following his dismissal without cause.

First, he argued that the termination clause in his employment contract was void because it excluded the continuation of group insurance benefits during the statutory notice period, contrary to the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Second, he argued he was entitled to statutory severance pay because the employer's global payroll exceeded $2.5 million, even though its Ontario payroll did not.

The court agreed on both issues, finding the termination clause null and void for violating the Act's minimum standards, and ruling that the calculation of an employer's payroll under section 64 is not restricted to wages paid in Ontario.