Kumail Karimjee

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought $60,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The defendant argued the amount was excessive and proposed $39,519.26.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the plaintiff's success and the moderate complexity of the matter.

Finding the plaintiff's counsel's hourly rate and hours spent to be somewhat high, the court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, founder and former president of the defendant company, was terminated without cause three years after selling his shares to a purchaser.

The defendant relied on a termination provision and release signed at the time of the sale to limit his notice.

The court found the termination provision and release void for violating the Employment Standards Act by excluding his pre-sale years of service.

The court awarded the plaintiff 24 months of common law reasonable notice, including base salary, benefits, and lost bonus potential, but dismissed his claim for moral damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in his wrongful dismissal and human rights claim against his former employer.

The plaintiff alleged he was terminated without cause, while the employer maintained he resigned or abandoned his position.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial due to significant conflicts in the evidence regarding the circumstances of the plaintiff's departure, his medical condition, and mitigation efforts.

The court declined to use its discretionary fact-finding powers, concluding that a fair and just determination required a full trial.

The defendant employer brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff’s human rights claim from an amended statement of claim arising from his termination following public statements about the Syrian conflict.

The defendant argued the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the alleged dismissal was based on political opinion, which is not a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The court held that, accepting the pleaded facts as true, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff’s views could not constitute a creed linked to protected grounds such as religion or place of origin.

Accordingly, the human rights claim was allowed to proceed.

However, certain paragraphs of the pleading were struck under Rule 25.11 as irrelevant and prejudicial to a fair trial.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action following the closure of the defendant’s manufacturing operations.

The court considered the appropriate reasonable notice period, whether overtime should be included in calculating damages, the compensability of lost employment benefits, and whether mitigation income earned during the statutory notice period under the Employment Standards Act should reduce common law damages.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court determined that a 20‑month notice period was appropriate.

The court held that overtime formed an integral component of the employee’s compensation and must be included in damages, and that the employee was entitled to compensation for lost benefits.

Mitigation income earned during the statutory ESA notice period was not deductible from damages beyond ESA minimum entitlements.