Natasha Anne Hyppolite

Following an eight-day trial where Mr. Park's action was dismissed, Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. sought partial indemnity costs of $135,814.08.

Mr. Park argued the amount was excessive, proposing "no more than $75,000" and incorrectly relying on simplified procedure rules.

The court found counsel rates reasonable but acknowledged potential duplication of effort due to multiple lawyers and students involved over the case's long duration.

Considering the case's moderate complexity, importance to both parties, and Costco's full success, the court fixed Costco's costs at $120,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, a 20-year employee, was terminated for just cause by the defendant after he twice deliberately deleted a company website he had created and engaged in insubordinate and dishonest conduct.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, claiming damages for pay in lieu of notice, loss of benefits, breach of human rights, bad faith, and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that his actions constituted wilful misconduct incompatible with the fundamental terms of his employment relationship, thereby justifying summary dismissal.

The court also found no evidence to support claims for bad faith or human rights damages, concluding that the employer's investigation was adequate and that the plaintiff's mental health did not play a role in the termination decision.

This is a costs decision following a motion for a restraining order, publication ban, and sealing order heard on an ex parte basis on September 27, 2018, and fully argued on November 29, 2018.

The applicant sought costs of the motion on a partial recovery basis in the amount of $12,356.71.

The respondents opposed the award and sought costs against the applicant.

The court found the applicant was wholly successful on the motion and entitled to costs.

The respondents' conduct prior to and in relation to the motion was unreasonable and necessitated the motion.

The court rejected arguments that the applicant acted unreasonably and awarded the full amount sought.

The applicant Director sought a restraining order against the respondents, who claimed to be the legal guardians of a Métis child by virtue of an Aboriginal custom adoption.

The child was subject to a continuing custody order in British Columbia and had been placed in Ontario.

The respondents had attempted to apprehend the child from her school in Ontario.

The court declined to decide the validity of the custom adoption, recognizing the British Columbia custody order instead.

Finding that the Director had reasonable grounds to fear for the child's safety, the court granted the restraining order.

Viktor Mubili brought a motion seeking leave to bring a motion to change a custody and access order, to set aside a costs order, and for other relief.

The court denied leave, finding the motion an abuse of process due to re-litigation of previously decided issues, failure to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, and persistent non-payment of child support and numerous outstanding costs awards totaling nearly $23,000.

The court also lacked jurisdiction to set aside a recent costs order.