Michael Joseph Bonomi

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following a successful summary judgment motion, requesting $28,339.41.

The defendant conceded entitlement to partial indemnity costs but proposed $7,500, arguing for divided success as the plaintiff did not succeed on all claims (aggravated damages, vacation pay) and the final award of $33,098.44 was close to the defendant's settlement offer.

The court found mixed success, noting the plaintiff was awarded 8 months' pay in lieu of notice (instead of 11 months sought), inclusion of a bonus, no vacation entitlement, and dismissal of punitive damages.

Considering the mixed success and the parties' offers to settle, the court fixed costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This is a wrongful dismissal action where both parties agreed to proceed by way of summary judgment to determine the period of reasonable notice and the calculation of damages.

The plaintiff sought 9 to 12 months' notice and aggravated damages, while the defendant proposed a notice period not exceeding 7.5 months and disputed aggravated damages.

The court determined an 8-month notice period was appropriate based on the Bardal factors, and calculated damages for salary, health care benefits, pension, and a bonus.

The claim for vacation pay and aggravated damages was dismissed.

Following a wrongful dismissal action in which the plaintiff obtained damages, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although the action proceeded under the ordinary procedure, the damages fell within the range of the Simplified Procedure and were only slightly above the Small Claims Court limit.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on a claim for bad faith damages, but the court found that commencing the action under the ordinary procedure was not unreasonable.

The court held that the plaintiff achieved modest success and was entitled to costs, but found the claimed partial indemnity costs disproportionate to the recovery.

Costs were fixed at a reduced amount.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action following termination without cause after more than eight years of employment as a quality assurance analyst.

The court determined the appropriate reasonable notice period by considering age, length of service, nature of employment, and compensation structure including overtime, bonus, benefits, and pension contributions.

A nine‑month notice period was found appropriate and damages were calculated accordingly, subject to deductions for amounts already paid and mitigation earnings.

The plaintiff also sought aggravated or bad faith damages based on the employer’s conduct surrounding the dismissal.

The court held that while the employer’s conduct was insensitive and unprofessional, it did not rise to the level of egregious or bad faith misconduct required under the governing jurisprudence.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal after termination without cause, while the defendant later alleged fraudulent pre-employment misrepresentations as just cause.

The court rejected the just cause defence, found six months of reasonable notice, accepted most claimed compensation items, rejected mitigation arguments, and awarded damages.

The appellant employer appealed a wrongful dismissal decision awarding the respondent 24 months' severance and two months' Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent was a 23-year employee despite a two-year gap for maternity reasons.

However, applying Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, the Court set aside the Wallace damages because the respondent's mental distress did not qualify for compensatory damages.

The Court also corrected a double-counting error regarding Employment Standards Act severance pay.

The appeal was allowed in part.