Jordan Reiner

The plaintiffs were successful in their wrongful dismissal actions against the defendant and sought full indemnity costs capped at $50,000 each under Rule 76.12.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant argued the costs claimed were disproportionate and excessive.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding the cases were simple, materially identical, and handled by common counsel, which should have resulted in substantial efficiencies.

The court rejected the claim for full indemnity costs and awarded a total of $50,000 inclusive of HST for both claims combined, plus disbursements, resulting in $26,117.08 for each plaintiff.

The plaintiffs, two long-term employees, were laid off by the defendant employer in early 2020 due to supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in China.

The plaintiffs treated the lay-offs as constructive dismissals and brought summary judgment motions for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer did not have an implied right to lay off the employees, and even if it did, the lay-offs exceeded 35 weeks, resulting in deemed terminations under the Employment Standards Act.

The court awarded both plaintiffs 22 months of reasonable notice.

The plaintiff, Richard Hefkey, sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal and constructive dismissal against Blanchfield Roofing Company Limited.

The court addressed whether a genuine issue requiring trial existed, the permissibility of layoffs under the verbal employment agreement, the impact of a new proposed contract on constructive dismissal, the plaintiff's position and length of service, and entitlement to bonus during the notice period.

The court found Hefkey was not wrongfully dismissed by the initial layoff but was constructively dismissed when the company required him to sign a new employment contract with substantially altered terms.

The court determined his length of service was shorter than claimed due to a four-month break and awarded damages including bonus compensation, while dismissing claims for aggravated damages and the defendant's counterclaim.

The court fixed costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $70,851.70.

The court considered the principles of costs under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 57.01 and Rule 1.04(1.1) regarding proportionality and access to justice.

It noted that the defendant's offers to settle were not Rule 49 compliant and that the action proceeded under Simplified Procedure (Rule 76), which aims for cost-effectiveness.

Finding the case not complex and the defendant's claimed hours and rates excessive, the court awarded the defendant $25,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, an automotive technician, was terminated for cause by the defendant dealership for intentionally misrepresenting the need for brake replacement on a customer's vehicle to generate lucrative work.

The plaintiff sued for common law wrongful dismissal damages and statutory termination/severance pay.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony not credible and concluded that his actions were driven by greed and constituted intentional misrepresentation, striking at the heart of the employment relationship.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding just cause for dismissal and that his conduct met the 'wilful misconduct' exception under the Employment Standards Act, disentitling him to statutory payments.