Amanda J. Hunter

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision on an appeal of a wrongful dismissal case.

The appellant insurance company sought to reduce the respondent employee's damages by challenging the reasonable notice period and bonus entitlements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the notice period but dismissing other arguments.

The respondent sought clarification on bonus entitlements and the parties exchanged submissions on costs.

The Court declined to entertain new arguments raised by the appellant at the costs stage and awarded costs to the respondent.

A senior vice president with 37 years of service was terminated without cause following a minor dispute over promotional sporting event tickets.

The motion judge awarded 30 months' notice and full bonus entitlements during the notice period.

On appeal, the employer challenged both the notice period and the bonus entitlement.

The Court of Appeal reduced the notice period to 24 months, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a longer period.

However, the court upheld the bonus entitlement, finding that while the termination provision in the bonus plans was unambiguous and would have limited the employee's entitlement, the provision was unenforceable because it was not properly communicated to the employee by the employer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin, ethnic origin, and age, relating to denials of tenure track positions in 2001, 2005, 2006, and 2011.

The respondent requested that the pre-2011 allegations be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the pre-2011 allegations did not form a 'series of incidents' with the timely 2011 allegations due to a significant temporal gap and differing grounds of discrimination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant failed to demonstrate she had no reason to inquire about her rights.

The pre-2011 allegations were dismissed as untimely, and the matter was referred to mediation.

Following a successful motion striking the plaintiff’s statement of claim, certain defendants sought costs including substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered the parties’ extensive submissions regarding delay, cross-examinations, and the complexity of the motion.

While the defendants were wholly successful and entitled to costs, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff’s conduct did not rise to an abuse of process.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs and rejected the plaintiff’s request to stay the costs determination pending the outcome of a human rights application in another forum.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award dismissing its grievance for delay.

The arbitrator found that the union failed to explain a one-year delay in scheduling the resumption of the arbitration hearing, contrary to the collective agreement's requirement to expedite proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and exercise of discretion to be reasonable, and noting that the union's delay in perfecting the judicial review application also militated against granting relief.

The applicant alleged he was subjected to workplace harassment and terminated on the basis of his disability (ADD/depression) by his employer and supervisors.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility due to numerous inconsistencies.

The Tribunal concluded that the supervisor's conduct and the applicant's subsequent termination were related to the applicant's poor work ethic, attitude, and insubordination, rather than any disability or perceived disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged she was sexually harassed by the spouse of a client and that her employer failed to properly train her or respond to her complaints, leading to her resignation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding it had provided adequate training and responded appropriately and in a timely manner once notified.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the client's spouse, concluding that although his conduct constituted sexual solicitation, he did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Code as he was not an employer, agent, or person in a position to confer or deny a benefit to the applicant.