Monica Machado

The defendant Dusan Tosic sought partial indemnity costs against the plaintiff Tania Ivic following the plaintiff's action, including a motion to amend the Statement of Claim and the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff failed to submit costs submissions.

The court applied the rule that costs should follow the event and found the defendant's requested costs of $5,333.07 to be fair and reasonable.

A previous costs award of $632.50 in favour of the plaintiff was set off against this amount, resulting in a net payment of $4,700.57 to the defendant.

The defendant Tosic brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action against him, which alleged vicarious liability for a sexual assault committed by a taxi driver operating Tosic's taxicab.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend her Statement of Claim to add claims for breach of contract and implied warranty.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to amend, finding the proposed implied warranty that the taxicab would be free from sexual assault was not legally tenable.

The court granted Tosic's motion for summary judgment, applying the Bazley v. Curry factors and finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding vicarious liability, as the alleged assault was not sufficiently linked to the risk introduced by the employer.

The appellant alleged she was sexually assaulted by a taxi driver employed by the respondent taxi company.

She sued the taxi company on grounds of vicarious liability, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing all claims against the taxi company.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the dismissal of her vicarious liability claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the alleged sexual assault was only coincidentally linked to the taxi company's activities as a taxi dispatching business and did not meet the test for vicarious liability established in Bazley v. Curry.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' constructive dismissal action, the defendant sought costs, arguing for substantial indemnity from the date of its Rule 49 offer.

The court held that Rule 49 does not apply when a plaintiff's claim fails entirely.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they were forced to proceed to trial because the defendant's offers were nominal.

The court awarded the successful defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $50,000 plus HST.

The plaintiffs, a married couple who were long-term employees of the defendant, resigned and claimed constructive dismissal.

The wife had received a letter of reprimand for insubordination after refusing to start work earlier and being rude to a new manager.

The plaintiffs alleged the workplace was unsafe and unsanitary due to clutter, mice, and bats.

The court dismissed the action, finding the letter of reprimand was a moderate response to insubordination and the workplace conditions, while not ideal, did not amount to an unsafe environment or a fundamental change to the employment contract.

The plaintiffs' resignations were not justified on an objective standard.