Jonathan D. Cocker

Following a successful motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis exceeding $32,000.

The defendants argued their conduct did not justify elevated costs and that a genuine legal issue existed regarding whether a binding settlement agreement had been reached.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court of Appeal’s guidance on when substantial indemnity costs are appropriate.

The court found the defendants’ conduct did not meet the threshold of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous behaviour warranting substantial indemnity costs.

However, costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis in a reduced amount due to excessive hours claimed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached at mediation regarding his claim for unpaid bonuses following the termination of his employment.

The defendants refused to finalize the settlement after discovering the plaintiff was working for a competitor, alleging a breach of his non-competition agreement.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement on all essential terms.

The court held that the alleged breach of the non-competition clause was not material to the plaintiff's entitlement to a bonus earned during his employment, and enforced the settlement agreement.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct related to unauthorized secondary employment.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of unauthorized secondary employment during the cross-examination of the appellant, effectively splitting its case.

The Commission also found that the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt lacked an evidentiary foundation and adequate reasoning, as the appellant's undisputed testimony indicated he had received verbal approval for his secondary employment.

The conviction was revoked.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct related to unauthorized secondary employment.

The Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence regarding the lack of authorization for the secondary employment during the cross-examination of the appellant, effectively splitting its case.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to provide adequate reasoning for rejecting the appellant's undisputed testimony that he had received verbal approval for his business activities.

The conviction was revoked due to procedural unfairness and lack of evidentiary foundation.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-hour forfeiture of pay.

The conviction arose from the officer's failure to pay for a wood splitter purchased at an auction while off duty until after he was interviewed by Professional Standards.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that a valid public complaint had been initiated.

The Commission also upheld the 16-hour forfeiture penalty, finding it within the reasonable range given the officer's prior disciplinary history, but varied the penalty by deleting the specific directions regarding how and when the hours were to be served.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a disciplinary conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-hour forfeiture.

The conviction arose from an unpaid debt for snow removal services related to his secondary employment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Police Services Act regarding the timeliness of the complaint and that there was sufficient evidence the appellant received the invoices.

However, the Commission varied the penalty to an 8-hour forfeiture, concluding that the original penalty was excessive for minor off-duty misconduct and that severe general deterrence was not required.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding no just cause for the respondent's termination and extending the notice period by two months.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of no just cause, as the appellant failed to show the trial judge was clearly wrong.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the judgment amount by one-third because the trial judge erred in extending the notice period without evidence that the termination prolonged or aggravated the respondent's depression.