Neena Gupta

On the first day of trial, the Plaintiff brought a motion seeking the production of redacted portions of an email and a non-disclosed attachment, which the Defendants claimed were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the Defendants' use of boilerplate language for Schedule "B" in their affidavits of documents did not comply with Rule 30.03(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as it failed to provide sufficient information to challenge the privilege claim.

The court ordered the Defendants to immediately provide a detailed description of the documents, including their nature, sender, receiver, and the specific grounds for the claimed privilege, to enable the Plaintiff to properly assess and potentially challenge the privilege or argue implied waiver.

Following a trial for wrongful dismissal where the plaintiff was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant argued that its offers to settle should impact costs, that costs should be distributed due to the plaintiff's unsuccessful bad faith claims, and that the plaintiff should pay substantial indemnity costs for those allegations.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding the offers did not meet Rule 49 requirements and the bad faith claims, while unsuccessful, were not reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff $171,000 in partial indemnity costs plus disbursements.

Fabiene Evans, a chartered accountant and institutional equity salesperson, was constructively dismissed by Paradigm Capital Inc. after being offered a significantly altered role with reduced responsibilities and uncertain compensation following her breast cancer diagnosis and return to work.

The court found that Evans was not obligated to accept the revised role as mitigation due to its ill-defined nature, uncertain compensation, and the potential for humiliation and loss of dignity.

The court set the reasonable notice period at 11 months and awarded damages for lost salary, performance bonuses, and shareholder bonuses during this period.

The plaintiff's claim for bad faith in the historical calculation of bonuses was rejected, as the employer's compensation process was found to be fair and reasonable.