Michael J.P. O’Brien

Following an unsuccessful defence motion for summary judgment on a discoverability issue in a motor vehicle accident action, the court addressed the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought over $50,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court found the requested fees excessive, noting duplication of work among multiple counsel and disproportionate time claimed by senior counsel who did not draft the materials.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized fairness, reasonableness, and the expectations of the parties.

Costs were reduced and fixed at a lump sum of $29,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant brought a motion compelling the plaintiff to attend a second defence medical examination, this time with a physiatrist.

The plaintiff had already attended a psychiatric defence medical examination and argued that only one examination should be permitted.

The court held that the plaintiff was claiming both psychological and physical injuries, which are distinct areas of medical inquiry, and fairness required that the defence obtain an additional expert assessment addressing the physical injuries.

The court found minimal prejudice to the plaintiff given the absence of a scheduled trial date and the importance of the assessment to the defence case.

The motion was granted, but no costs were awarded due to ambiguity created by earlier correspondence between counsel.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against a temporary staffing agency and two pharmacy chains.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the applications should be consolidated.

Applying the factors for consolidation, the Tribunal found that the applications involved identical allegations, common issues of fact and law, and overlapping remedies.

Despite the applicant's objection regarding an imbalance of legal representation, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid multiple proceedings and inconsistent results.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to make required remittances to health, welfare, and pension funds.

The responding party did not appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the responding party violated the collective agreement by failing to remit payments for April, May, and June 2001, despite filing contribution reports.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $52,818.86 in damages, including liquidated damages, and ordered a related entity to pay $214.00 in costs.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party employer failed to pay wages and make proper remittances and contributions under the collective agreement.

The responding party failed to attend the hearing.

The Board proceeded in its absence, declared that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it, and ordered the responding party to pay $140,360.52 in unpaid wages, pension contributions, benefits, liquidated damages, and fees.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, claiming unpaid remittances and liquidated damages for late payments.

The responding party employer admitted the late and unpaid remittances but argued it should not have to pay liquidated damages or the union's filing fees because the union filed a false certificate of delivery and served the materials late.

The Board relieved against the strict application of its Rules of Procedure regarding service, noting the employer suffered no prejudice as the hearing had been adjourned by agreement.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the unpaid remittances and liquidated damages.

However, the Board declined to order the employer to pay the union's filing and hearing fees, as neither the collective agreement nor the Act provided for such an award in these circumstances.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit benefit contributions.

The responding party failed to file a response or appear at the hearing.

The Board deemed the responding party to have accepted the facts in the application and found it violated the collective agreement by failing to pay remittances for October, November, and December 1999.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $23,766.56 in unpaid remittances, $810.48 in interest, and $749.00 in filing fees, for a total of $25,326.04.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit benefit contributions.

The responding party did not file a response and failed to attend the hearing.

The Board deemed the responding party to have accepted the facts in the application and found it violated the collective agreement.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $36,601.46 in unpaid remittances and interest, plus $749.00 in filing fees for failing to participate in the scheduled proceedings.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit benefit contributions.

The responding party did not file a response or appear at the hearing.

The Board deemed the facts in the application accepted and found the responding party violated the collective agreement by failing to pay remittances for October, November, and December 1999.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $130,481.40 in unpaid remittances and interest, plus $749.00 in filing fees due to its failure to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party joint venture failed to make required benefit fund contributions.

The responding party did not appear at the hearing.

The Board considered whether a joint venture is bound by a collective agreement signed by its constituent corporations.

Finding that a joint venture is generally a partnership at law, the Board held that the joint venture is bound by the collective agreement obligations of its partners when undertaking covered work.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $22,366.61 in liquidated damages for late payments.