Laura Freitag

The plaintiff's motion for the case management judge's recusal was previously dismissed.

The parties could not agree on costs and provided written submissions.

The defendants sought $4,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff argued he should not pay costs, claiming he did not formally bring a motion and was impecunious.

The court found the plaintiff was responsible for the motion due to his persistent allegations of bias.

The court rejected the impecuniosity argument, noting a lack of evidence and that the plaintiff's conduct caused delay and wasted judicial resources.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs to the defendants.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge, alleging bias and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiff's allegations included complaints filed with the Canadian Judicial Council, dissatisfaction with procedural orders, and claims that the judge was disrespectful and failed to record a case conference.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court noted that the test for bias is objective and that a litigant's subjective dissatisfaction with procedural orders or the filing of a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council does not constitute cogent evidence of bias, particularly in a case-managed environment.

The plaintiff purchased an auto parts business from two of the defendants and sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants established a competing business just outside the restricted radius and used a related company and former employees to solicit customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were breached, failed to prove irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs exceeding full indemnity, while the defendants argued for costs in the cause or a reduced amount due to the plaintiff's delay.

The court found that the defendants did not act in bad faith or unreasonably in bringing the motion, noting that the delay was largely attributable to the plaintiff's counsel.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $25,735.54.

The plaintiff sued his former employer and three individual managers for wrongful dismissal, moral damages, punitive damages, and intentional infliction of mental suffering, alleging workplace harassment and reprisal.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims against the individual defendants were factually intertwined with the claims against the corporate employer and were not readily separable.

The court concluded that granting partial summary judgment would create a material risk of inconsistent findings and would not be a proportionate or cost-effective way to resolve the litigation.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached at mediation in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant opposed and brought a cross-motion to refuse enforcement, arguing it had mistakenly made a prior payment of $115,465.20 to the plaintiff which it did not know about during mediation.

The court found that the written Minutes of Settlement were clear and unambiguous, and that the defendant's mistake was unilateral.

Because there was no evidence the plaintiff knew of the mistake or engaged in fraud, the court enforced the settlement and ordered the defendant to pay the remaining balance.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during cross-examination on the basis of settlement and solicitor-client privilege, and to examine the plaintiff's counsel under Rule 39.03.

The underlying dispute involved a motion to enforce a wrongful dismissal settlement where the defendant alleged a mistake of fact regarding amounts already paid.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not waived privilege by putting his legal advice in issue, and that examining opposing counsel was neither necessary nor highly material to justify breaching solicitor-client privilege.