3 total
Court awards reduced partial indemnity costs despite plaintiff improperly proceeding outside simplified procedure.
Following a wrongful dismissal trial where the plaintiff recovered $12,400, the court addressed costs and the scope of pre‑judgment interest.
The defendant argued no costs should be awarded because the action should have proceeded under the simplified procedure and had languished for years without progress.
The court held it was unreasonable for the plaintiff to continue under the ordinary procedure given the value of the claim, but nevertheless exercised its discretion to award partial indemnity costs because the plaintiff was the successful party and had been dismissed without notice.
Costs were reduced to reflect the simplified procedure framework and unnecessary steps such as discoveries.
Pre‑judgment interest was limited to periods when the action was actively pursued.
Termination after workplace argument lacked just cause; employee awarded six months’ reasonable notice.
The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated following an argument with his employer regarding entitlement to statutory holiday pay.
The employer alleged just cause based on the employee’s failure to use a time clock and excessive personal cell phone use.
The court held that these behaviours had been treated only as minor irritants and were never accompanied by escalating discipline or warnings that termination could follow.
The court also rejected the employer’s argument that the claim was barred by s. 97 of the Employment Standards Act because the evidence did not establish that a formal ESA complaint had been filed, and in any event the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to extend the withdrawal period.
Applying the Bardal factors, the court determined that six months’ reasonable notice was appropriate and awarded damages after accounting for mitigation income.
Condominium corporation awarded full compliance-order costs under Condominium Act s.134(5).
Following a successful application by a condominium corporation to enforce compliance with the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation’s declaration regarding exclusive use rights to sell fresh meat and poultry, the court addressed the issue of costs.
The corporation sought recovery of its legal costs pursuant to s. 134(5) of the Act, which allows a condominium corporation to recover both court-awarded costs and additional actual costs incurred in obtaining a compliance order.
The respondents argued that they should not bear responsibility for the costs or that liability should fall on the other respondent.
The court held that the policy behind s. 134(5) shifts the financial burden of obtaining compliance orders to the offending unit owner or occupier.
The full amount of the claimed legal costs was found reasonable and awarded, with the owner liable for the total amount but entitled to recover half from the tenant.
