Michel Castillo

The plaintiff sought costs of $14,946.31 on a partial indemnity basis following a successful wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive, asserting the net recovery fell within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction and noting the plaintiff's failure on the moral damages claim.

The court rejected the defendant's calculation involving statutory deductions, finding the claim was not within Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

Taking into account the plaintiff's lack of success on moral damages, proportionality, and indemnification, the court fixed costs at $10,000 inclusive.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action under the Simplified Procedure.

The defendant employer alleged just cause for termination based on performance and behavioural issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding cause, as the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence of misconduct warranting summary dismissal, and set the reasonable notice period at 14 months.

However, because the Simplified Procedure prevented cross-examination on affidavits, the court found a genuine issue regarding mitigation of damages and the value of lost benefits, ordering a minitrial to resolve those specific issues.

The defendants brought a motion to terminate a reference under Rule 54.04, seeking to return the action to the regular court stream.

The plaintiff opposed.

The court determined that the reference could not be concluded without the referee delivering an interim or final report and a mediation taking place, as stipulated by the original order and Rules 54.06 and 54.08(1).

Consequently, the motion was adjourned pending the completion of these steps.

The plaintiff software company brought a motion seeking injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from marketing competing software allegedly derived from the plaintiff’s proprietary source code and confidential information.

The motion followed earlier interlocutory orders requiring both parties to deposit their source code and select an independent expert to conduct a comparative analysis to determine whether copyright infringement had occurred.

The court found the original injunction resembled a quia timet order granted on speculative evidence, with no proof of actual or imminent harm.

The defendants had repeatedly proposed a neutral comparison of the competing source codes, including permitting the plaintiff’s own expert to conduct the review, while the plaintiff declined to proceed.

The court held that irreparable harm had not been established and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the defendants to continue selling their software pending trial.

The motion for injunction and related motions were dismissed and the status quo maintained pending expert comparison.