Mark David Tector

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Amended Statement of Claim to re-add claims for aggravated damages and unpaid overtime wages, which had been previously removed by consent of her former counsel.

The defendant opposed, arguing abuse of process and non-compensable prejudice due to the expiry of limitation periods.

The court denied the motion, finding that allowing the amendments would constitute an abuse of process by resiling from a binding agreement and would cause non-compensable prejudice as the limitation period for the claims had expired.

The plaintiff sought to amend a prior judgment, alleging an obvious error regarding an agreement on an incentive package.

The defendant disputed the agreement and raised its own complaint about the judgment's finding on mitigation.

The court treated the letters from counsel as motions and dismissed both, finding that the alleged errors were not clerical slips or omissions under Rule 59.06(1) but rather challenges to judicial reasoning.

The court also found no agreement between counsel regarding the incentive package and that the defendant's mitigation complaint faced the same jurisdictional impediment.

The plaintiff, a 55-year-old employee with 25.5 years of service, was terminated without cause from his position as Director, Customer Development, Retail Sales.

He brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal.

The court found summary judgment appropriate and awarded a 22-month reasonable notice period.

The court also held the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his lost bonus, pension, and health benefits during the notice period, and found the employer failed to prove the plaintiff did not adequately mitigate his damages.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages relating to a dispute over sales commissions.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the action based on arbitration clauses in the relevant sales agreements.

The plaintiff argued the clauses were invalid due to vagueness or unconscionability.

The court found the arbitration clauses were binding, unambiguous, and not unconscionable, and stayed the action in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the individual defendant to attend an examination for discovery on his own behalf and on behalf of the corporate defendant in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendants argued the examination should be delayed until outstanding production issues regarding the plaintiff’s medical records were resolved.

The court held that while discovery may be delayed in certain circumstances where significant production issues remain, the plaintiff had made some medical production and the defendants had not shown that further records were necessary prior to the examination.

The court also found that by agreeing in a discovery plan that the defendant would be examined in Toronto, the defendants had waived objections related to service requirements for out-of-province witnesses.

The motion was granted and the examination ordered to proceed before the defendants’ production motion.