Christian Vernon

In this costs endorsement following a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff recovered modest damages well within the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction but sought substantial partial indemnity costs in the Superior Court.

The court held it was reasonable to commence the action in the Superior Court because the plaintiff had a bona fide fixed-term contract claim that, if successful, could have yielded damages of approximately $175,000.

The court rejected the defendant's submissions that the plaintiff should receive no costs, or should pay the defendant's costs, based on abandoned bad-faith allegations and the quantum recovered.

Partial indemnity costs of the trial and costs of the earlier security for costs motion were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action alleging he had a guaranteed five‑year fixed‑term employment contract and was dismissed after only eight months.

The employer denied any fixed‑term agreement and argued the employee resigned.

The court found that the parties formed an oral employment contract confirmed by email that did not include a five‑year guarantee, and that later documents referencing such a term were created primarily to assist the employee in obtaining mortgage financing and were unsupported by fresh consideration.

The court accepted the employee’s account that he had been dismissed during a heated confrontation rather than having resigned.

Damages were therefore limited to reasonable notice rather than the balance of a fixed term, and the court awarded two months’ notice damages.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's refusal to reconsider its decision certifying the respondent union.

The employer alleged that one of the employees had not signed a union membership card.

The Board denied the reconsideration request, citing the employer's delay and the fact that the Board had already returned the membership cards to the union.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that it properly considered multiple factors, including delay, prejudice, and the loss of continuity of the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the revocation of its registration under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicant argued that the respondent breached principles of natural justice in its decision-making process regarding two specific properties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal explicitly and properly based its revocation decision on other warranty breaches without relying on the evidence concerning the two disputed properties.