Justin Dubois

Following the dismissal of the employer's appeal from a Small Claims Court decision awarding the employee $25,000 for wrongful dismissal, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The employee sought $16,450.25 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the employer argued for a lower amount.

The court found the issues were not complex and awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 for the appeal, plus the maximum allowable 15% of the damages ($3,750) for the trial costs under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Following a summary judgment granting the plaintiffs $6,000 in damages for defamation, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $43,356.82.

The court considered the defendant's financial situation and the principle of proportionality, ultimately fixing costs at $10,000.

The applicants, L’association pour l’intégration sociale d’Ottawa (AISO), Annik Méthot, and Marc Richer, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for defamation, punitive damages, and permanent injunctions against the respondent, Marlène Casimir.

Casimir, a former employee of AISO, was dismissed in 2015 and subsequently engaged in a sustained campaign of defamatory statements through public protests, flyers, emails, and Twitter, accusing the applicants of injustice, racism, harassment, and dishonesty.

The court found that Casimir's statements were defamatory and that her defense of justification lacked evidentiary support.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the applicants, awarding general and punitive damages, and a permanent injunction was issued to prevent further dissemination of defamatory content.

Two traffic-offence appellants argued Alberta had a constitutional obligation to enact, print, and publish legislation in both French and English based on the 1867 Address and 1870 constitutional instruments.

A majority held no entrenched constitutional guarantee of legislative bilingualism applied to Alberta through those texts, rejected related fiduciary-duty arguments, and dismissed both appeals.

The Court answered the constitutional questions in Alberta's favour while awarding the appellants party-and-party costs in this Court and below.