3 total
Court rejects substantial indemnity costs and awards reduced partial indemnity costs.
Following a successful motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis exceeding $32,000.
The defendants argued their conduct did not justify elevated costs and that a genuine legal issue existed regarding whether a binding settlement agreement had been reached.
The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court of Appeal’s guidance on when substantial indemnity costs are appropriate.
The court found the defendants’ conduct did not meet the threshold of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous behaviour warranting substantial indemnity costs.
However, costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis in a reduced amount due to excessive hours claimed.
Settlement agreement reached at mediation enforced despite employer's subsequent discovery of alleged non-competition breach.
The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached at mediation regarding his claim for unpaid bonuses following the termination of his employment.
The defendants refused to finalize the settlement after discovering the plaintiff was working for a competitor, alleging a breach of his non-competition agreement.
The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement on all essential terms.
The court held that the alleged breach of the non-competition clause was not material to the plaintiff's entitlement to a bonus earned during his employment, and enforced the settlement agreement.
Appeal allowed in part to remove a two-month notice extension unsupported by medical evidence.
The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding no just cause for the respondent's termination and extending the notice period by two months.
The Divisional Court upheld the finding of no just cause, as the appellant failed to show the trial judge was clearly wrong.
However, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the judgment amount by one-third because the trial judge erred in extending the notice period without evidence that the termination prolonged or aggravated the respondent's depression.
