Marc A. Rodrigue

The plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action was dismissed on consent after it was determined that, as a unionized employee, his claims were governed by a collective agreement and could not be adjudicated in court.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $46,544.75.

The court found the requested costs excessive given the straightforward nature of the jurisdictional issue and the plaintiff's likely impecuniosity.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The court determined the costs award following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $52,000, while the defendant proposed $5,000 to $10,000.

The court initially adjusted the parties' agreed partial indemnity estimate of $35,000 to $30,000 due to both parties prolonging litigation.

Further adjustments were made for counsel's hourly rates and the simplified procedure rule, leading to a partial indemnity award of $27,500.

The plaintiff's Rule 49 offer did not trigger substantial indemnity due to an unpleaded human rights allocation and an insufficient differential in after-tax values.

The plaintiff, a long-term employee, was terminated for cause by the defendant employer, Best Buy, on grounds of conflict of interest and dishonesty.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer failed to establish either ground for just cause.

The alleged conflict of interest (operating a competing repair service) was based on outdated ads and never materialized, and the accusation of reselling products for profit was unsubstantiated.

The dishonesty claim was also not proven, as the plaintiff's explanations were reasonable or related to a personal medical condition.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to 11 months' notice, calculating total damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and services on the basis of disability against her employer, union, benefits insurer, and pension plan.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether parts of the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or for delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, insurer, and pension plan, finding no reasonable prospect of success as their actions were not based on discriminatory factors but on plan definitions and available information.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations against the employer relating to events prior to October 2010 due to delay, as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by the applicant's long-term disability insurer and the WSIB.

The Tribunal held that an insurance provider's internal process is not a 'proceeding' under the Code and denied the request to dismiss on that basis.

The Tribunal deferred the WSIB overlap issue to the hearing on the merits and denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing, finding factual disputes required evidence.