Jock Climie

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal following an asset sale of the business.

He claimed entitlement to 12 months' notice under his employment agreement due to a change in control.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by unreasonably rejecting an offer of comparable employment from the purchasing company.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had fully mitigated his damages through earnings generated by his own corporation during the notice period.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant brought an eve-of-trial motion to adjourn the trial and compel further disclosure and discovery regarding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts through his corporation.

The plaintiff had previously answered 'zero' when asked about personal income from the corporation, but recently produced a ledger showing significant shareholder loan repayments.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding the plaintiff had an ongoing obligation to correct misleading discovery answers.

The court ordered limited additional documentary production and a brief discovery, but declined to adjourn the trial, directing that the discovery be completed before the trial commenced the following week.

A real estate investment management company appealed a trial judge's decision finding that it had repudiated its contract with a real estate broker and his operating company.

The trial judge found that the company had recruited the broker to undertake higher-value transactions in Ottawa but then repudiated the agreement by unilaterally imposing a $10 million ceiling on transactions and reserving transactions above that amount exclusively to its National Retail Investment Group.

The appellate court upheld the repudiation finding, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test and made no palpable and overriding error.

The respondents cross-appealed the costs award, and the appellate court granted leave and allowed the cross-appeal, increasing costs from $40,000 to $111,288 based on the rule 49.10(1) offer to settle.

The Plaintiffs moved to have the Defendant found in contempt for allegedly breaching an interim order by making statements in a private chat group.

The Defendant argued the Plaintiffs breached the implied undertaking rule by relying on these posts and that the postings did not contravene the order.

The court granted the Plaintiffs leave to rely on the postings but dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the Defendant's conduct was not clearly in breach of the order, which should be narrowly construed given the importance of free expression in defamation cases.

The court also noted the Defendant's immediate removal of the post upon request demonstrated an intention to comply.

The plaintiffs, a commercial real estate broker and his company, brought an action against the defendant brokerage firm seeking a declaration that their independent contractor agreement was terminated without cause, thereby forgiving a $225,000 loan.

The defendant counterclaimed for repayment of the loan, alleging the plaintiff terminated the agreement or was terminated for default.

The court rectified the agreement to include a mistakenly omitted provision regarding the plaintiff's leadership role and analyzed the interpretation of the plaintiff's role as the Ottawa Practice Lead for investments, finding that no strict $10 million ceiling was placed on the plaintiff's transactions.

The plaintiff, DST Consulting Engineers Inc., brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and re-attendance at examinations for discovery by the defendants, 2299910 Ontario Inc. and CanRil Corporation.

DST claimed $31,114.57 for environmental engineering assessment services.

The court found that the defendants' corporate representative, Charles Guilbault, lacked basic knowledge and provided evasive answers, frustrating the discovery process.

The motion was granted, compelling the defendants to answer most refused questions, provide particulars of alleged deficiencies, and ordering a second examination with a different representative, Terrence Guilbault.

The defendant territorial government brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay a wrongful dismissal action commenced in Ontario by a former employee who had worked in Nunavut.

The court applied the jurisdiction simpliciter test from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda to determine whether a real and substantial connection existed between the dispute and Ontario.

The plaintiff relied on factors including recruitment activities, an Ottawa liaison office, the use of an Ontario-based investigator, and the administration of disability benefits in Ontario.

The court held these did not establish that the defendant carried on business in Ontario and therefore no presumptive connecting factor existed.

In any event, the court found that Nunavut would clearly be the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the reasonable notice period following her without-cause termination.

The 41-year-old plaintiff was employed as a middle manager for 2.5 years.

The court found that the employer's contributions to CPP and EI should be included in the calculation of her compensation package.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at six months and awarded damages of $23,315, representing the balance owing after deducting severance payments already made.

The defendant brought a motion to determine costs after the parties agreed to end the litigation.

The plaintiff had originally sued the defendant, a former employee, for allegedly misappropriating confidential information and company property.

The action was ultimately discontinued as the anticipated damages did not materialize.

The court found that the litigation was not unreasonable when commenced, but since neither party prevailed on the merits, it ordered that each party bear its own costs.