Matthew Fisher

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded 10 months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a combined partial and substantial indemnity basis, capped at $56,500 under Rule 76.12.2(1) for Simplified Procedure actions.

The defendant argued for a lower amount.

The court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of taxes, plus $4,560.28 for disbursements, noting the straightforward nature of the case and the defendant's refusal to accept the plaintiff's reasonable offers to settle.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached at mediation in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant opposed and brought a cross-motion to refuse enforcement, arguing it had mistakenly made a prior payment of $115,465.20 to the plaintiff which it did not know about during mediation.

The court found that the written Minutes of Settlement were clear and unambiguous, and that the defendant's mistake was unilateral.

Because there was no evidence the plaintiff knew of the mistake or engaged in fraud, the court enforced the settlement and ordered the defendant to pay the remaining balance.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during cross-examination on the basis of settlement and solicitor-client privilege, and to examine the plaintiff's counsel under Rule 39.03.

The underlying dispute involved a motion to enforce a wrongful dismissal settlement where the defendant alleged a mistake of fact regarding amounts already paid.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not waived privilege by putting his legal advice in issue, and that examining opposing counsel was neither necessary nor highly material to justify breaching solicitor-client privilege.

A long‑serving employee dismissed after 38 years sued several related corporations for wrongful dismissal, asserting they operated as a common employer and that a successor entity continued the same business.

The court applied the common employer doctrine and found the companies functioned as an integrated enterprise using the same business name, premises, and personnel.

The newly operating entity that continued the business could not avoid liability merely through corporate restructuring.

The court also upheld a decades‑old retirement compensation agreement, finding it remained valid because the employee’s duties and employment relationship had not fundamentally changed.

All defendants were held jointly and severally liable for wrongful dismissal damages and retirement compensation.

A former senior executive sued for wrongful dismissal after termination without cause.

The dispute concerned whether a later employment document replaced an earlier agreement containing a 12‑month severance clause, the appropriate reasonable notice period, and entitlement to bonus payments.

The court held the later document constituted a new employment agreement that displaced the earlier severance provision, leaving notice to be determined under the common law.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded a 12‑month reasonable notice period despite the employee’s relatively short tenure and rejected the employer’s proposed three‑month period.

The court also denied the employee’s claim to bonus payments because the bonus plan required active employment at the payout date.