Katherine Golobic

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence as an abuse of process under Rule 25.11(c), alleging the defendant's lawyer was non-responsive and failed to serve a notice of change of lawyer.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 25.11 is reserved for abusive pleadings, not to sanction a lawyer's conduct during the proceeding.

The court also found no requirement for lawyers in the same workplace to serve a notice of change.

Despite the defendant's success, the court declined to award costs, finding that the motion could have been avoided if the defendant's lawyer had communicated promptly and professionally with the self-represented plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a warehouse employee of 13.5 years, sued for wrongful dismissal after the defendant outsourced its warehouse operations.

The plaintiff declined an offer of employment from the outsourcing company before his termination took effect.

The court held that the plaintiff did not fail to mitigate his damages because the alternative job offer was made and withdrawn prior to his actual termination.

The court awarded the plaintiff 12 months of reasonable notice and dismissed the claim for punitive damages.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award elevated costs, noting the plaintiff's conduct contributed to the motion's circumstances, including an unsuccessful adjournment request.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, human rights damages, and intentional infliction of mental suffering against his employer and its principal, as well as against a related corporation, claiming they were common employers.

The related corporation brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that this was not one of the rare cases where partial summary judgment is appropriate, as the claims against the moving party were factually intertwined with the claims against the other defendants, creating a material risk of inconsistent findings.

The defendant employer brought a motion to quash three Rule 39.03 summonses to witness served by the plaintiff employee in advance of a pending pleadings motion.

The plaintiff sought to strike out portions of the defendant's amended pleading alleging after-acquired cause.

The court found that the extensive list of documents requested in the summonses amounted to a fishing expedition and an attempt to initiate early discovery.

The motion was granted and the summonses were quashed as an abuse of process.