Muneeza Sheikh

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award elevated costs, noting the plaintiff's conduct contributed to the motion's circumstances, including an unsuccessful adjournment request.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, human rights damages, and intentional infliction of mental suffering against his employer and its principal, as well as against a related corporation, claiming they were common employers.

The related corporation brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that this was not one of the rare cases where partial summary judgment is appropriate, as the claims against the moving party were factually intertwined with the claims against the other defendants, creating a material risk of inconsistent findings.

The plaintiff, a 54-year-old employee with 21 years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal.

Following a summary judgment motion, a mini-trial was held to determine the plaintiff's character of employment, reasonable notice, and mitigation efforts.

The court found that despite his title, the plaintiff did not hold a management position.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court set the reasonable notice period at 18 months.

However, the court reduced the notice period by two months because the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by using an inaccurate resume to apply for incomparable senior management positions.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of an amended statement of claim against a corporate officer personally.

The plaintiff sought damages related to her termination of employment and pleaded tort claims for intentional or negligent infliction of nervous shock and punitive damages against the officer.

The court held it was plain and obvious that the tort claims had no reasonable prospect of success because allowing them would circumvent contractual exclusion and entire agreement clauses contained in the employment agreement.

Applying principles from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence concerning limitation of liability clauses and privity, the court found the exclusion clause extended to the officer acting within the scope of employment.

The claims against the officer were struck in their entirety without leave to amend.