Tatha Swann

In a costs endorsement following a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, the court resolved remaining disputes over costs and pre-judgment interest on RSUs and stock options.

Applying section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 factors, the court found the plaintiff mostly successful and fixed partial indemnity costs at the full amount claimed.

On interest, the court declined to depart from the presumptive statutory scheme under sections 128 and 130 because no unusual or special circumstances were proven and no evidence established a higher investment return.

The court emphasized legislative objectives of certainty and consistency in prejudgment interest determinations.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent, brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant terminated his fixed-term contract without notice.

The court found that the termination clause did not clearly allow for termination without notice, and any ambiguity was resolved against the defendant who drafted the contract.

The plaintiff was entitled to damages for the remainder of the one-year term.

The court awarded damages of $21,034.01, accounting for the plaintiff's mitigation of damages by finding new employment and a decline in the real estate market.

The court issued an addendum to its previous Reasons for Decision on a motion to correct a factual error.

The court clarified that the defendant had paid the plaintiff benefits for 31 weeks and 1 day, rather than up to the hearing date as originally stated.

The plaintiff was successful on a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, being awarded $208,448.64 in damages.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendant argued costs should be denied because the action should have been pursued under the Simplified Procedure.

The court found the plaintiff beat his Rule 49 offer and that Rule 76.13 did not apply to deny costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $32,333.13, reducing the requested amount due to excessive time claimed.

The respondent, having been wholly successful on the underlying application, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the applicant's unreasonable conduct and abusive social media posts.

The applicant, who was unrepresented, did not provide costs submissions.

The court found that while the applicant's conduct and use of foul language on social media could not be condoned, substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the all-inclusive amount of $27,466.60.

The applicant sought an order declaring her retainer and contingency fee agreements with the respondent law firm unenforceable, and for disgorgement of fees, or alternatively, an assessment of fees.

The respondent consented to the unenforceability of the contingency fee agreement and referral to assessment.

The court found a solicitor-client relationship existed and that the respondent was entitled to reasonable compensation on a quantum meruit basis, despite the applicant's rejection of a reasonable settlement offer.

The court fixed the fees and disbursements payable by the applicant to the respondent.

In this case management endorsement, the court addressed several procedural issues between the parties.

The court set a schedule for written submissions to settle the terms of a previous order, established a contingent timetable for pleadings pending an appeal, ordered the return of the plaintiff's devices, and directed further submissions on a document protocol and costs.

The court issued a costs endorsement following an interlocutory decision where the defendants sought to interpret a previous order, imposing additional and retroactive obligations on the plaintiff and its expert.

The plaintiff successfully resisted the defendants' arguments on most issues.

The court found the defendants' positions unreasonable and unfair, particularly their allegations of misconduct against the plaintiff's counsel and expert, which unnecessarily consumed court and plaintiff's time.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, reducing the claimed amount due to excessive research time and high expert invoice.

The defendants brought a motion seeking directions on the interpretation of a previous order for the seizure and imaging of electronic devices, arguing it should implicitly incorporate standard Anton Piller Order protections and that Deloitte Inc. should be deemed an independent supervising solicitor.

The plaintiff resisted, asserting the original order was clear and granted on notice, not ex-parte.

The court dismissed the defendants' primary requests, holding that the order, having been granted after a full hearing with both parties present, did not automatically include ex-parte Anton Piller terms or appoint Deloitte as an independent supervising solicitor.

The court provided further directions for managing the collected electronic documents, including a timeline for the defendants to review MD5hash documents and the option for them to appoint their own expert to assist with keyword searches.

The plaintiff executive brought a wrongful dismissal action following termination without notice after approximately six years of employment.

The employer initially alleged cause but later conceded none existed.

The court applied the Bardal factors and determined that a reasonable notice period was 13 months but reduced it to 12 months due to limited mitigation efforts.

Damages were calculated using the plaintiff’s most recent accepted salary of $70,000 rather than a prior higher salary.

The court also awarded reimbursement for expenses and RRSP contributions, rejected a limitations defence regarding those expenses, and ordered the defendant to purchase gifted shares from the plaintiff at $160,000.