Melynda Layton

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought to prevent cross-examinations on affidavits filed for his motion to enforce a settlement, arguing the action was under the Rule 76 Simplified Procedure which prohibits such cross-examinations.

The defendant corporation opposed, arguing the motion to enforce a settlement is akin to a summary judgment motion requiring cross-examinations.

The court held that Rule 76 is not an absolute bar to cross-examinations in this context and that the two-step approach for enforcing settlements requires both parties to put their best foot forward.

The court extended the deadline for cross-examinations and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of the case conference.

Nylene Canada Inc. appealed a wrongful dismissal damage award, arguing the trial judge erred in calculating the reasonable notice period by including pre-retirement service and by exceeding a 24-month maximum.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings that the "retirement/re-hiring" was solely for pension access and did not constitute a break in service.

The court also upheld the 26-month notice period, finding it justified by the employee's unique circumstances, including long tenure, specialized skills, age, and difficulty finding new employment.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a two-day trial where the plaintiff obtained a judgment of $138,962.22, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $67,710.50 on the basis that the judgment exceeded her offers to settle.

The defendant argued for no costs due to divided success and unreasonable claims.

The court found that while the plaintiff beat her offer to settle, substantial indemnity costs were not appropriate given the defendant's partial success on some claims and some unreasonable billing entries.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $42,000 in fees and $2,114 in disbursements.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, and the defendant counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract.

The dispute arose after the plaintiff issued an ultimatum regarding her husband's pay and subsequently participated in organizing a work stoppage, demanding changes to her employment duties.

The court found that while the plaintiff did not clearly resign, her actions constituted a repudiation of her employment contract, justifying the end of her employment.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The defendant's counterclaim for wrongful resignation was also dismissed, as the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff's departure caused the alleged financial losses.

The plaintiff, a long-term employee of 39 years, brought an action for wrongful dismissal, aggravated/moral damages, and discrimination based on sex, age, and disability following her termination without cause.

The court found no break in service despite a new employment agreement signed to access a pension, entitling her to 26 months' notice.

Claims for aggravated/moral damages and additional discrimination grounds (age and disability) were dismissed due to insufficient pleading.

The claim for discrimination based on sex was also dismissed due to a lack of prima facie evidence.

The plaintiff's mitigation efforts were deemed reasonable.

The plaintiff's employment was terminated without cause at age 63.

The employer treated the termination as a retirement and paid the plaintiff his retirement allowance benefits under the company policy.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming entitlement to both the retirement allowance and compensation for termination in lieu of notice.

The court found that the employment contract and retirement policy expressly precluded the payment of both benefits.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the employer was granted summary judgment to recover an overpayment of funds mistakenly paid in lieu of notice.

The plaintiff, S.I. Systems Partnership, brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to increase general damages and add a claim for inducement of breach of contract, based on information obtained during discoveries.

The defendants opposed, arguing prejudice due to increased costs and the tenability of the new claim.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and any prejudice to the defendants could be compensated by costs and further discoveries.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or evicting them from commercial premises used to operate an auto repair garage.

In the alternative, they sought interim relief from forfeiture of a commercial lease after failing to exercise an option to renew within the contractual deadline.

The court held that although there were serious issues to be tried concerning the lease terms and the parties’ conduct, the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.

The court also found that the tenant had not demonstrated diligent efforts to comply with the lease renewal provisions and therefore did not meet the requirements for relief from forfeiture.

The motion was dismissed.