Maciej Lipinski

This endorsement addresses the appropriate resolution of costs and clarification of damages following a wrongful dismissal summary judgment motion.

The court determined that for the purpose of comparing a judgment to a Rule 49 offer, damages awards for wrongful dismissal are reduced by statutory termination payments.

Consequently, the plaintiff did not obtain a result more favourable than their Rule 49 offer, nor did the defendant's offer trigger cost consequences under Rule 49.10(2) as the court's award exceeded it when statutory payments were factored in.

The court also ruled that tax consequences are not relevant in a Rule 49 analysis.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs, and the net value of the judgment was clarified.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause by the defendant.

The court found the matter suitable for summary judgment.

Applying Waksdale, the court held the entire termination clause was void because the 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act by contracting out of minimum statutory entitlements.

The court awarded a five-month reasonable notice period, finding the plaintiff reasonably mitigated his damages by securing new employment, and calculated damages for base salary, commissions, and benefits, while denying lost pension contributions.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act against an employer and supervisor following a workplace accident.

The lower courts had excluded evidence from the Ministry of Labour's inspection of a roller, finding a breach of the respondents' Charter rights (s. 11(d)) due to the inspectors' failure to halt inspection after a lawyer's letter, poor note-taking, and not following internal policies.

The Court of Appeal found that there is no constitutional right for an accused to direct an investigation or be present during evidence inspection.

It held that inconsistencies in inspector testimony or failure to follow internal guidelines do not amount to a Charter violation.

Crucially, the respondents failed to demonstrate any prejudice to their right to make full answer and defence, especially after disposing of the evidence themselves.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.