Michael S. Stitz

The parties sought costs following three segments of the discovery process, including motions for undertakings and refusals.

The plaintiff claimed misappropriation by a former employee who started a competing business, while the defendant counterclaimed for wrongful dismissal.

The Master awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff for its successful refusals motion, partial indemnity costs to the defendants for their refusals motion (deferring expert costs to the trial judge), and ordered costs in the cause for both parties regarding a third motion involving aborted discoveries.

The defendant, SPS Commerce Canada Ltd., brought a motion to strike paragraphs 33 to 40 of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, arguing they contained without prejudice settlement discussions protected by settlement privilege.

The plaintiff, Tricia Clayton, opposed the motion, distinguishing between settlement discussions regarding a severance package and communications related to the employer's statutory duty to investigate harassment allegations and a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

The court found that the three conditions for settlement privilege were not met for the communications concerning the investigation and PIP, as these were factual and part of the employer's statutory obligations, not attempts to effect a settlement.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages for an unpaid 2016 fiscal bonus, bad faith, and punitive damages following the termination of his employment.

The plaintiff argued the bonus plan was objective and non-discretionary, while the defendant employer maintained it was discretionary and subject to board approval.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that material facts were in dispute regarding the nature of the bonus plan, alleged performance issues, and bad faith.

The court concluded that a fair and just determination required a full evidentiary record with viva voce evidence and credibility assessments at trial.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant argued for partial indemnity costs and relied on an all-inclusive offer to settle.

The court found the defendant's offer to settle was not more favourable than the judgment when statutory amounts and allocations were considered.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no bad faith or proffering of false evidence by the defendant.

Costs were fixed at $40,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase and particularize her claim for monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and for lost opportunity.

The respondents opposed the request to the extent it sought to withdraw or alter admissions.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant was not seeking to add new grounds or parties, nor was she seeking to withdraw or alter admissions.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion arising from a without-cause dismissal after 16 years of service as a specialized national account sales representative in the corrugated packaging and recycling industry.

Applying the reasonable notice factors, the court fixed notice at 16 months, emphasizing the employee’s age, lengthy service, specialized role, and the limited availability of comparable employment in a narrow industry.

The court rejected a claim for an enhanced 2012 bonus based on alleged unilateral changes to bonus criteria, but held that the bonus plan was an integral part of compensation during the notice period and awarded damages for bonus, group insurance benefits, pension contributions, and car allowance.

The court also rejected the employer’s mitigation defence and granted summary judgment for $131,515.35.

The appellant lawyer hired the respondent as a junior associate.

After a few months, the respondent delivered a highly critical letter accusing the appellant of dishonesty and incompetence, leading to her summary dismissal.

The trial judge found the letter constituted just cause for termination.

The Divisional Court reversed, finding the trial judge failed to apply the contextual approach mandated by McKinley v. BC Tel.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment, holding that the trial judge had properly examined the circumstances and nature of the conduct, and his factual findings were entitled to deference.