Kimberly D. Pepper

The plaintiff, Metro Ontario Inc., sought an interim injunction against the defendants, Unifor and its Local 414, and individual picketers, to restrain unlawful interference with its operations during a labour dispute.

The court granted an interim order, setting specific conditions for picketing, including limitations on vehicle delays at premises entrances and prohibitions on impeding emergency vehicles, security personnel, pedestrians, and access to a specific Food Basics store.

The motion was adjourned for further hearing.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employee's action for long-term disability benefits, arguing the claim was statute-barred and an abuse of process due to a prior grievance settlement.

The defendant also sought a contempt order against the plaintiff's counsel for allegedly sharing a mediation brief.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the limitation period was triggered, as the parties' conduct and settlement agreement suggested the claim was still under review.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process and contempt motions, noting the settlement did not finally determine benefit entitlement and no court order was breached.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment in a simplified procedure wrongful dismissal action arising from a without-cause termination after less than one year of service.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and determined the matter on the written record.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court found the plaintiff was not a senior manager or executive despite his title, but his age and the limited availability of comparable employment justified a reasonable notice period of two months.

After crediting the termination payments already made, the court awarded damages of $11,359.98 plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $6,379.48.

The plaintiff argued that each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be fixed at $1,500.

The court applied Rule 57.01 and the principles from Boucher, noting the motion was of average complexity but required a detailed summary of proceedings.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $6,000 all-inclusive.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, alleging the defendant engaged in improper conduct by initially offering insufficient severance.

The court found no improper, vexatious, or unnecessary conduct by the defendant that would warrant elevated costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $14,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the straightforward nature of the proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim, more than four years after its issuance and six years after her termination, to introduce claims related to medical disability preventing mitigation and a bad faith dismissal.

The court denied the plaintiff's request for an adjournment to cross-examine the defendant's affiant, finding it would not be useful.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was dismissed, as the court found significant prejudice to the defendant that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The delay in raising these new issues, particularly the medical disability and bad faith claims, deprived the defendant of a timely opportunity to investigate.

The bad faith claim was also deemed statute-barred.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old senior manager with 30 years of service, was dismissed without cause due to restructuring.

She brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court applied the Bardal factors and awarded a 24-month reasonable notice period, noting her age, long tenure, and the competitive disadvantage she faced in the job market.

The court also applied the trust and accounting approach rather than a contingency discount for mitigation, impressing the award with a trust in favour of the employer for any earnings obtained during the balance of the notice period.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendant for non-compliance with a Master's order regarding discovery refusals and production of documents, which had been upheld on appeal.

While the court declined to hear the contempt aspect due to short notice, it addressed the merits of the outstanding refusal (Refusal #3) and extended the time for the continued examination of the defendant's representative.

The court found the defendant's claim of no documentation for a previously admitted analysis to be incredible and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant's persistent delays and litigation tactics.

Following acceptance of a Rule 49 offer to settle shortly before a hearing, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the plaintiffs up to the date of the offer.

The plaintiffs had claimed more than $700,000 but settled for $84,042 plus costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering the proportionality principles reflected in Rule 76, the court found the plaintiffs’ requested costs excessive given the modest settlement relative to the claim.

The court emphasized the importance of proportional litigation and the costs consequences of advancing inflated claims.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded at a reduced amount.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his complaint.

The applicant had previously settled a civil action and human rights complaint against the respondent college for $10,800, but later applied to the Tribunal claiming the settlement was obtained by fraud and pressure.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal acted reasonably in dismissing the application, as the applicant had signed the settlement, received the funds, and provided no evidence of fraud or contravention.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.