D. S. Gunsolus

The respondents brought a motion to strike the applicants' application.

The court did not strike the application but granted the applicants leave to convert it to an action.

The parties subsequently made written submissions on the costs of the motion.

The applicants argued they should not be subject to costs as they were public interest litigants.

The court rejected this argument, finding the applicants were pursuing a personal pecuniary interest related to their commercial property.

The court awarded costs to the respondents, fixing the amounts at $15,000 plus disbursements for the federal respondents, and $2,500 each for the two municipal respondents.

The plaintiff, former president and CEO of the defendant investment management company, sued for constructive dismissal and breach of contract after the employer refused to pay a 10% bonus on a capital gain realized from a real estate joint venture.

The employer counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff breached his duties by failing to secure an asset management agreement for the project.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the plaintiff was contractually entitled to the bonus, awarding $329,687.00, as the capital gain was not specifically excluded from his employment memorandum.

However, the court dismissed the constructive dismissal claim, finding that the dispute over a one-time bonus calculation did not evince an intention by the employer to no longer be bound by the contract.

The employer's counterclaim was dismissed as entirely without merit, and the plaintiff was granted indemnification for his costs in defending the counterclaim pursuant to a corporate indemnification agreement.