Court File and Parties

CITATION: Mick v. Boulder City Climbing School Inc., 2007 ONCA 757

DATE: 20071106

DOCKET: C45868

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

MACPHERSON, JURIANSZ and LAFORME JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

CHRIS MICK

Plaintiff/Respondent

and

BOULDER CITY CLIMBING SCHOOL INC. and DAVID CARTER

Defendants/Appellants

Jarvis K. Postnikoff for the appellants.

Michel Sicotte and Jean-Nicholas Crepin for the respondent.

Heard: October 26, 2007

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Monique Metivier of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 23, 2006.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] There is no cause issue in this appeal. The respondent was entitled to salary, expenses and damages totalling $8301. He has never been paid this amount ($6301 of which the appellant concedes is owing) and the respondent remains entitled to receive the full amount.

[2] The appellant contends that the trial judge erred by not drawing an adverse inference with respect to non-disclosure of information by the respondent. It is important that there be full and timely disclosure in simplified rule proceedings. In this case, the disclosure issue does arise in light of the fact that the employee terminated the contract first.

[3] We do not accept the appellant’s argument that Carter should not have been found personally liable for the money owing to the respondent. The documents on the record and the testimony of the witnesses support the trial judge’s conclusion of joint liability.

[4] Finally, although the bonus clause is unclear, we can see no basis for concluding that the trial judge’s interpretation was erroneous.

[5] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $7000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.