Jordan Arthur Kirkness

Hampton Securities Limited appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its claim against Joseph Tassone for accumulated trading losses in an inventory account.

The motion judge found that the employment contract did not impose personal liability on Tassone for losses exceeding his personal reserve account.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation of the employment contract terms and rejection of an implied indemnity obligation.

The court distinguished the case from Refco Futures on its facts and rejected Hampton's arguments regarding industry practice and notice period issues.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful partial summary judgment motion brought by the Tassones against Hampton Securities Limited.

The Tassones had successfully dismissed Hampton's claims for over $600,000 in trading losses and relief under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The court found the Tassones were entirely successful on the principal claims and awarded them partial indemnity costs, rejecting Hampton's arguments for divided success or disentitlement due to unproven allegations.

The quantum of costs, fixed at $48,500.54, was deemed fair and reasonable, considering the importance of the issues and the comparable legal expenses incurred by both parties.

The defendants, a former employee and his wife, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employer's claim.

The employer sued the former employee for over $600,000 in accumulated trading losses incurred during his employment as a trader.

The court had to determine whether the employee was contractually obligated to indemnify the employer for trading losses in excess of his personal reserve account upon termination of his employment.

The court found that while the employer was entitled to apply the balance of the personal reserve against the losses, there was no express or implied term in the employment contract requiring the employee to cover the remaining losses.

The defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim for the excess losses was dismissed.

McMaster University sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision interpreting a collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the agreement required McMaster to consider employees' work on behalf of the union as part of their 'professional service and professional activity' for the purpose of determining merit pay.

McMaster argued this interpretation was unreasonable as it conferred a financial benefit without clear language, created a conflict of interest, and exposed the university to claims of anti-union conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation was within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes and did not create an absurdity.