Natalie C. MacDonald

This motion concerned the costs of a plaintiff's motion on undertakings and refusals.

The substantive issues were resolved at the outset of the hearing when the defendants capitulated to all of the plaintiff's demands.

The court distinguished the case from situations where parties settle "except for costs" before the hearing, noting the defendants' last-minute concession after the plaintiff had fully prepared for an opposed motion and the defendants had filed no responding materials.

The court found the defendants' strategy was one of delay to avoid cost consequences.

Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, for the motion, rejecting the plaintiff's request for full indemnity or costs incurred prior to the motion's commencement.

This decision addresses two motions regarding discovery undertakings and refusals in a wrongful dismissal action.

Marwan Dalle sought orders for Cisco's representative to provide better answers and reattend discovery, while Cisco sought similar orders against Dalle.

The court applied principles of relevance and proportionality, finding that constructive dismissal was sufficiently pleaded by Dalle.

Most of Dalle's requests for Cisco's representative were granted, particularly concerning employment offer terms, commission entitlements, inducement representations, and the veracity of the corporate restructuring reason for termination.

Cisco's requests for Dalle were largely found to have been addressed by Dalle's subsequent disclosures.

Both parties' representatives were ordered to reattend discovery for follow-up questions, with costs of reattendance reserved to the trial judge.

Dalle was awarded net partial indemnity costs of $7,000 against Cisco due to Cisco's lack of effort in reducing the issues in dispute.

The appellant, Johnson Controls Canada LP, appealed a summary judgment that awarded the respondent, John Maynard, full entitlement under his employment contract, including the value of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs).

Maynard was terminated without cause, and his compensation included RSUs subject to a forfeiture provision he was unaware of.

The motion judge found the exclusion of RSUs from the termination payment calculation breached the contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that Johnson Controls could not force Maynard to sign a release based on an improperly calculated amount and that the RSUs were part of his compensation entitlement.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the defendants, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The defendants sought $97,599.95 in substantial indemnity costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer was valid and the plaintiff fared less favourably, justifying costs on a higher scale.

However, noting the lack of complexity and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $45,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a Master's decision allowing claims for damages by Vivian Bercovici against Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, to proceed.

The claims arose from Bercovici's dismissal as Canada's Ambassador to Israel and included intentional infliction of mental suffering and bad faith post-termination conduct.

The Master had dismissed the mental suffering claim but allowed the bad faith claim to proceed against Telford personally.

The Superior Court of Justice, on appeal, found that under Ontario law, only employers can be liable for bad faith conduct committed by their employees within the scope of employment regarding employment contracts.

Consequently, the personal claim against Katie Telford for bad faith post-termination conduct was dismissed.

Leave was granted to Bercovici to amend her Statement of Claim to plead conduct beyond the scope of employment.

The applicant, a university professor, sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend her in a defamation action brought by a former colleague in Trinidad and Tobago.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the applicant was not acting on behalf of the university when she made the impugned statements and thus was not an 'Additional Insured'.

The court found that the pleadings raised the mere possibility that the applicant was acting in her capacity as a professor on behalf of the university when she provided an off-list reference.

The court declared the insurer had a duty to defend but held the insurer retained the right to appoint defence counsel.

The appellants, three physicians who practiced in the respondent hospital's urgent care centre, appealed the dismissal of their wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge dismissed the claim on the ground that it was barred by section 44(5) of the Public Hospitals Act, which immunizes hospitals from liability for acts done in good faith when a hospital board decides to cease providing a service.

The appellants argued that section 44(5) should not apply based on legislative history and the characterization of their status as dependent contractors.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that section 44(5) is clear and all-encompassing, barring all proceedings for damages arising from a hospital's decision to cease providing a service, regardless of the legal characterization of the terminated physicians' status.