David Barbaree

Hampton Securities Limited appealed a trial judgment in which the trial judge found that the employee, Christina Nicole Dean, was not indebted to Hampton for trading losses, was constructively dismissed, and was entitled to six months' notice in lieu of salary.

The trial judge also awarded damages for defamation and punitive damages, along with costs on a full indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal upheld all findings, rejecting Hampton's arguments regarding the employment contract interpretation, constructive dismissal, the enforceability of the termination clause, the qualified privilege defence to defamation, and the appropriateness of punitive damages and costs awards.

The respondent was successful in opposing the appellant's motion for a stay pending appeal of a mandatory order to amend a Notice of Termination filed with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,500.00, payable within 30 days.

The appellant's arguments that costs should be deferred pending the outcome of the appeal were rejected on the basis that success on a motion is assessed at the time the motion is decided, not retroactively based on appeal outcomes.

Following a trial where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and the defendant succeeded on her counterclaim for wrongful dismissal and defamation, the defendant sought full indemnity costs.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct in filing a knowingly false Notice of Termination with regulators and using it to extract a cash settlement was reprehensible and oppressive.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a full indemnity basis, fixed at $248,144.94, after making minor deductions for duplicative time and excessive disbursement charges.

A registered investment firm appealed a trial judgment finding that it had constructively dismissed a trader and defamed her by filing a Notice of Termination with IIROC stating she was dismissed for cause for unauthorized trading.

The trial judge ordered the firm to correct the notice.

On a motion for a stay of the mandatory order pending appeal, the court applied the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald and dismissed the motion.

The court found the appeal raised a serious question but that the appellant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the respondent suffered ongoing professional harm from the defamatory statements and the appeal would not be rendered moot by compliance with the order.

An appeal from a motion judge's order rectifying a will to correct a drafting error.

The estate trustee sought to correct the will to reflect the deceased's intention to liquidate sufficient shares to provide two children with $1 million each.

The widow, who did not challenge the will and elected to take under it, appealed the rectification order and sought leave to appeal the costs disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in principle and that the factual findings were amply supported by evidence.

Leave to appeal costs was denied.

A dispute arose between a commercial landlord and tenant concerning the tenant’s attempt to exercise a lease renewal option and alleged arrears of additional rent.

The landlord refused renewal and ultimately locked the tenant out, causing a planned sale of the restaurant business to collapse.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the tenant, awarding damages for loss of the business sale, arbitration and settlement expenses, the security deposit, and punitive damages, and dismissed the landlords’ counterclaim.

The landlords appealed on multiple grounds including refusal of an adjournment, improper notice of renewal, and alleged rent default.

The Court of Appeal rejected each ground and upheld the summary judgment.

The defendant sought leave to amend pleadings to introduce new claims, including for unpaid wages, and to particularize existing claims, despite the advanced stage of litigation.

The plaintiff opposed, citing abuse of process, potential delay, and limitation period issues for the new claims.

The court granted leave, noting that the core claim for statutory entitlements had been present since the initial pleadings and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated non-compensable prejudice.

The decision allowed the plaintiff to plead limitation periods as a defence and proposed terms, including the potential severance of the counterclaim, to mitigate trial delays.

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant landlords after a dispute over the renewal of a commercial lease.

The tenant exercised its option to renew via SMS message, which the landlords ignored, instead demanding alleged unpaid additional rent.

The parties reached a settlement to arbitrate the rent, but the landlords breached the settlement, locked the tenant out, and caused the tenant to lose a $140,000 sale of its business.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the landlords breached the lease and settlement, and awarded $183,837.49 in damages, including $20,000 in punitive damages for the landlords' egregious conduct.

The defendant Gregory Judd moved for substantial indemnity costs after the plaintiff Enerworks Inc. discontinued its action against him.

The action alleged fraud, conspiracy, and fraudulent transfers of assets.

The court found that Enerworks Inc. commenced and continued the action against Judd without sufficient credible evidence to support the serious allegations of fraud, deeming the allegations reckless.

Consequently, the court awarded Judd costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $68,000, finding that it was in the interests of justice given the unfounded nature of the claims and the potential damage to Judd's reputation as a professional accountant.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained during a recreational non-contact hockey game, alleging that an opposing player intentionally or negligently checked him into the boards and that the league operator failed to provide a safe playing environment.

The court considered the negligence standard applicable to sporting events and the doctrine of implied consent to the inherent risks of hockey.

The evidence did not establish that the opposing player acted with intent to injure or in a reckless manner outside the ordinary risks of play.

The court further held that the league had appropriate rules, referees, and disciplinary systems, and that the plaintiff had signed a clear waiver releasing the league from liability for injuries arising from hockey participation.

The action was therefore dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction alleging copyright infringement, but later abandoned it after receiving assurances from the plaintiff regarding a revised manuscript.

The plaintiff sought costs of the abandoned motion forthwith under Rule 37.09(3).

The court declined to award costs forthwith, finding that the defendant was justified in bringing the motion initially and that the trial judge would be in the best position to determine costs and assess what efforts were thrown away.

Costs of the abandoned motion were reserved to the trial judge, with no costs awarded for the costs motion itself.

The appellants, selling shareholders in a family business, appealed the dismissal of their action for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression against the non-selling shareholders and the corporation's professional advisors.

The trial judge had utilized a 'hybrid' trial model following a failed summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants were precluded from challenging the hybrid trial model as they had not appealed the initial trial management order.

Furthermore, the Court upheld the trial judge's finding that no fiduciary duty was owed during the share redemption negotiations, as the relationship between the parties was highly adversarial and marked by distrust.

The substantial indemnity costs award of nearly $2.5 million was also upheld.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision upholding a fine and suspension after his horse tested positive for banned substances.

The applicant challenged the validity of the Commission's rule imposing absolute liability on trainers for positive drug tests, arguing that a due diligence defence must be available.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Commission's broad statutory mandate to regulate horse racing in the public interest authorized the creation of an absolute liability rule.

The Court also found the Commission's rejection of the applicant's due diligence defence to be reasonable.