Nicole D. Tellier

Following a trial where the plaintiff recovered approximately $290,000 in damages for battery, assault, human rights violations, and wrongful dismissal against his former employer, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of over $122,000, while the defendants argued for no costs or nominal costs because the plaintiff recovered significantly less than the $2.3 million claimed.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful and awarded partial indemnity costs of $80,000, apportioned 75% to the corporate defendant and 25% to the individual defendant.

The plaintiff's request for an enhanced interest rate of 10% was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a temporary foreign worker, sued his former employer and supervisor for constructive dismissal, human rights violations, and various intentional torts, including battery, assault, and human trafficking.

The plaintiff alleged that his supervisor subjected him to severe verbal abuse and physically assaulted him by punching him in the testicles, which ultimately required surgical removal of the testicle.

The court found the supervisor liable for battery and assault, and the employer vicariously liable.

The court also found that the employer constructively dismissed the plaintiff by failing to address the harassment and by interfering with his WSIB claim after a workplace fall.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal, battery, assault, unpaid wages, and Human Rights Code violations, including significant aggravated and punitive damages.

The claims for intentional infliction of mental suffering and human trafficking were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a series of arbitration awards concerning parenting issues for the parties' four-year-old child, E. The awards included E's registration on the Korean Family Registry, the requirement to hire a transfer facilitator for child exchanges, and the arbitrator's costs decision.

The court also addressed preliminary motions for fresh evidence.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, with the court upholding the arbitrator's decisions, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors in principle.

The fresh evidence motions were largely dismissed, applying the Palmer test, due to issues of hearsay, reliability, and statutory prohibition.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's slip and fall action, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably during mediation and pre-trials.

The court found that while the plaintiff's evidence involved exaggeration and his refusal to compromise was unreasonable, his behaviour did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required for elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $139,821.66.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage during which they built a successful recreational equipment business.

The trial judge ordered the husband to pay $9,584 per month in spousal support, attributing $400,000 in annual income to him based on past corporate profits.

The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to apply the Child Support Guidelines to determine the husband's income and by adopting an unreasonable approach to estimating future corporate profits.

The Court reassessed the husband's income at $214,872 and the wife's income at $109,535, and substituted a spousal support order of $1,500 per month.

The plaintiff brought two negligence actions: one against the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and its driver for a bus door incident, and another against the City of Toronto for a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk.

The court dismissed both actions, finding no negligence on the part of the defendants and significant credibility issues with the plaintiff regarding his injuries, pain, and efforts to return to work.

The court also found that the plaintiff's alleged psychological injuries were not causally linked to the TTC accident or were too remote.

The defendant Lumipro Inc. sought summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff Maxrelco Inc. lacked standing as it was a shareholder, not the property owner, and that Lumipro was only hired for repairs, not maintenance.

Maxrelco Inc. brought a cross-motion to amend its Statement of Claim to correct a misnomer, changing the plaintiff to Maxrelco (Immeubles) Inc., the actual property owner.

The court granted Maxrelco's cross-motion, finding it was a misnomer and caused no prejudice to the defendant.

Consequently, the court dismissed Lumipro's summary judgment motion, determining there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the cause of the fire and Lumipro's alleged negligence in sign repair and maintenance.

The father sought expanded parenting time with overnight access for his young daughter, while the mother opposed the expansion, citing behavioral concerns and the child's continued breastfeeding.

The court ordered overnight access to commence in August 2015, finding that a delay would allow the parties to work with a family counselor to improve communication and reduce conflict.

The court also awarded partial costs to the father for the mother's failure to timely investigate and disclose options regarding her Japanese residency permit renewal, which she had presented as an emergency requiring immediate travel with the child.

A costs decision following an interim motion and cross-motion concerning child residential schedule, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent mother achieved greater success on the motion, particularly regarding spousal support entitlement despite a marriage contract waiver.

The applicant father sought to deprive the respondent of costs based on alleged bad faith in failing to comply with a prior consent order for mediation.

The court found the respondent's behaviour unreasonable but not in bad faith, and awarded partial costs to the respondent.

Motion and cross-motion in a family law matter involving a separated couple with a young daughter.

The father sought expanded residential time with the child, including overnight visits, and an order preventing the mother from obtaining a replacement birth certificate.

The mother sought to restructure the existing access schedule, obtain a conduct order, production of documents, questioning on financial issues, child support, and spousal support.

The court addressed the enforceability of a mediation order, the child's residential schedule, makeup time provisions, production and questioning orders, child support, and spousal support in the context of a marriage contract waiver.

The court found a triable issue regarding the enforceability of the spousal support waiver and ordered temporary spousal support despite the waiver.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $45,000 made against him in a family law proceeding.

The motions judge had awarded costs on a full indemnity basis after finding the applicant acted in bad faith and unreasonably.

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to bring the motion but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs award and noting the case did not raise issues of general importance.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision regarding child custody and support.

He argued the trial judge erred in not ordering joint custody and parallel parenting, and in awarding lump sum child support based on imputed income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the parties' inability to agree on important decisions justified sole custody.

The court also upheld the imputed income of $50,000, noting the appellant's underemployment and failure to make proper financial disclosure.

Costs of $9,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that struck a jury notice and ordered security for costs.

The respondents brought motions to quash the appeal on the basis that the order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that while the right to a jury trial is a substantive right, an order striking a jury notice is collateral and does not determine the substantive issues in dispute.

The security for costs order was also held to be procedural and interlocutory.

The motions to quash the appeals were granted, with the Court noting that the delay caused by appealing to the wrong court should not be held against the appellant if he seeks leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The parties separated after a 15-year common law relationship and agreed to shared custody of their two children.

The trial judge ordered the appellant to pay $400 per month in child support, departing from the Guidelines set-off amount, and awarded the respondent $150,000 for unjust enrichment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by speculating on the parties' lifestyle to increase child support and by effectively equalizing net family property rather than applying the 'value received' approach for unjust enrichment.

The appeal was allowed, reducing child support to the $272 set-off amount and the unjust enrichment award to $70,000.

The respondent's cross-appeal for trial costs was also allowed.

The parties separated after 14 years of marriage and executed a comprehensive separation agreement that included a full and final release of spousal support.

The wife later applied for spousal support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the strict threshold from the Pelech trilogy no longer applies under the 1985 Divorce Act.

Instead, courts must apply a two-stage test, examining the circumstances of the agreement's formation and whether it still reflects the parties' intentions and substantially complies with the Act's objectives at the time of the application.

Applying this framework, the Court upheld the separation agreement and dismissed the wife's claim for spousal support.

The appellant father, earning over $945,000 annually, appealed a child support order requiring him to pay the Table amount of $10,034 per month for his two children.

He argued that the Table amount was inappropriate under s. 4 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and that the word 'inappropriate' allowed for downward variation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'inappropriate' means 'unsuitable', granting courts discretion to increase or decrease Table amounts for high-income earners.

However, the Court found a presumption in favour of the Table amounts and concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused her discretion in awarding the Table amount in this case.