R. Flom

The plaintiff, a 16-year employee on long-term disability, was advised her employment was terminated due to corporate restructuring and offered a demoted position at a lower salary.

She accepted the new position to mitigate her damages and sued for wrongful dismissal.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court found she was wrongfully dismissed and awarded 18 months' notice based on her pre-termination salary.

The court held that the employer was not entitled to deduct the long-term disability benefits from the damages award because the plaintiff had contributed to the insurance premiums.

Claims for bad faith and discrimination damages were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for answers to undertakings and refusals in the context of a construction lien action.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties submitted written arguments regarding costs.

The defendant, having been entirely successful, sought costs of $5,674.94 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the factors under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, reduced the defendant's attendance fee, and fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $5,074.94.

Following a partial appeal reducing damages and prejudgment interest in an oppression action, the court reconsidered the quantum of trial costs and the cost consequences of a pre-trial offer to settle.

The court held that, once the amended judgment and pre-offer costs were compared to the offer, the plaintiff had obtained a result less favourable than the offer.

Rule 49.10 was therefore engaged.

However, because of the defendants' conduct previously found to justify elevated costs, the court ordered substantial indemnity costs in favour of the plaintiff to the date of the offer, partial indemnity costs to the defendants thereafter, and netted the awards.

The defendants also received costs of the rehearing.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $250,000 in damages for oppression, the court determined the issues of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court rejected the plaintiff's expert calculation for prejudgment interest, instead applying the Courts of Justice Act rate from the date the cause of action arose.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendants' conduct in taking excess compensation and deliberately withholding information to be egregious and reprehensible.

The defendants' Rule 49 offer did not apply because the judgment, which included substantial indemnity costs, was more favourable than the offer.

Costs were fixed at $413,000.