Mirilyn Sharp

The plaintiff, a foreign-trained lawyer, was hired as a law clerk subject to a three-month probationary period.

He was dismissed without cause or notice after only 10 days of employment.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer failed to provide the plaintiff with a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his suitability for the position, as required by common law for probationary employees.

The court awarded the plaintiff three months' pay in lieu of notice, noting his short service, age, and the time it took to find alternative employment.

Claims for mental distress and punitive damages were dismissed.

Following a trial where the defendant lawyer was ordered to return the plaintiffs' $35,000 deposit, the court determined the quantum of expenses and costs.

The court found the defendant engaged in unreasonable behaviour by misleading the court, failing to produce crucial documents, and hiding the improper release of the deposit.

The plaintiffs were awarded $5,795.50 for legal expenses incurred to recover the deposit, plus $7,500 in costs (including a penalty for unreasonable behaviour) and $416 in disbursements.

The plaintiffs paid a $35,000 deposit into the trust account of the defendant lawyer, who was acting for the vendors in a proposed asset purchase agreement.

The lawyer released the funds to his clients and kept $3,000 for himself before the agreement was even signed, and hid this fact for three years.

The court allowed the self-represented plaintiffs to amend their claim mid-trial due to the lawyer's late disclosure of documents.

The court found the lawyer was willfully blind to his clients' fraudulent scheme and breached his trust obligations to the non-client plaintiffs.

The lawyer was ordered to repay the $35,000 deposit plus up to $15,000 in legal expenses incurred by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff homeowner contracted the defendant installers to install four Energy Star windows that would qualify for a government rebate.

The installers installed the wrong windows in two rooms and failed to complete the installation properly.

When the homeowner insisted on a third-party energy audit before making final payment, the installers refused and demanded payment.

The court found the installers fundamentally breached the contract, relieving the homeowner of the duty to allow them to rectify the deficiencies.

The court awarded the homeowner $5,100 for rectification costs and lost rebate value, dismissing the installers' counterclaim and awarding elevated costs against them for unreasonable behaviour.

The plaintiff, who suffers from severe osteoarthritis, sued a supermarket for $35,000, alleging intentional infliction of mental distress and discrimination under the Human Rights Code after she was asked to leave the store for sitting too long.

The court dismissed the claim, finding the store owner's conduct in asking her to leave and threatening to call the police was not flagrant, outrageous, or calculated to produce harm.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the plaintiff's disability was a factor in the store's decision to ask her to leave, as she was interfering with business and creating a safety concern.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, the defendants sought elevated costs of $10,500 based on an offer to settle and the plaintiff's unreasonable behaviour, including sending offensive emails.

The court found the offer to settle did not meet the timing requirements of Rule 14.07 and the offensive emails did not correlate to additional trial costs.

The court held that the individual defendant lawyer, represented by members of his current firm, was a self-represented litigant subject to the $500 costs cap under Rule 19.05, as he failed to prove an opportunity cost.

However, the defendant law firm was entitled to a reasonable representation fee under Rule 19.04.

The court awarded total costs of $3,051.95 to the defendants.