P.A. Neena Gupta

The plaintiff, Amit Arora, was terminated for cause by ICICI Bank of Canada after 15 years of employment.

The Bank alleged breaches of duties of good faith and loyalty, including sharing confidential information with competitors (BMO and RBC), planning to compete with the Bank by incorporating a company (BrainTree) with subordinates, and dishonesty during the internal investigation.

The court found that Arora was not a fiduciary but breached his common law and contractual duties by sharing proprietary documents, involving subordinates in competitive plans, and being untruthful during the investigation.

The court concluded that the cumulative effect of these serious breaches warranted summary dismissal, as they fundamentally undermined the employment relationship.

The plaintiff's claims for wrongful dismissal, moral damages, and bonus/ESOP benefits were dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a dismissed interlocutory injunction application.

The defendants, who successfully resisted the injunction, sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiff's alleged misconduct and the impact on their livelihoods.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity or costs in the cause, and sought discounts.

The court determined that costs should be fixed and paid forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, applying a 10% reduction for work that would benefit the overall litigation.

Substantial indemnity was denied as the plaintiff had a serious issue to be tried and the alleged misconduct did not meet the threshold for elevated costs.

The plaintiff, Pioneering Technology Corp. (PTC), sought an interlocutory injunction against former employees and a contractor (Laird Comber, Wayne Zu, and Steph Cooper) to prevent them from using confidential information and developing a competing business venture.

PTC alleged breach of contract, fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and breach of confidence, stemming from the defendants' undisclosed plans to collaborate with a Chinese supplier (Donghai) to distribute a product (2BGT) in North America, potentially involving PTC.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions from *RJR MacDonald v. Canada*.

While a serious issue to be tried was found regarding fiduciary duties and corporate opportunity, the court determined that PTC failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any potential damages from a competing venture could be quantified, and there was no evidence of imminent harm or disclosure of confidential information.

The balance of convenience also did not favour granting the injunction, given the preliminary stage of the defendants' plans and Donghai's prior decision not to contract with PTC for the 2BGT.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

This decision re-evaluates a costs award following a successful appeal by the defendant that significantly reduced the plaintiff's damages in a wrongful dismissal case.

The defendant argued that their earlier offer to settle, which included "statutory deductions" without specificity, should trigger Rule 49 cost consequences as the plaintiff's final recovery was less than the offer.

The court found the offer too ambiguous to meet Rule 49's strictures.

It also dismissed arguments regarding fresh evidence of a counsel agreement and the application of Simplified Procedure rules due to the action's commencement date.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court determined that despite the plaintiff's limited success on major claims, the overall results were mixed, leading to an order that each party bear their own costs.

An appeal and cross-appeal from a wrongful dismissal judgment.

The trial judge found the appellant, an institutional equity salesperson, was constructively dismissed and awarded 11 months' pay in lieu of notice totalling $240,313.79 (net $137,055.54), including base salary, performance bonus, and shareholders' bonus.

The appellant appealed the calculation of her performance bonus; the respondent cross-appealed on mitigation, notice period, shareholders' bonus entitlement, and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but allowed the cross-appeal in part, finding the appellant was not entitled to shareholders' bonus damages as her shares were redeemed upon termination of employment.

The net damages award was reduced to $57,262.96, and costs were remitted to the trial judge for recalculation.

Appeal from a trial judgment dismissing a negligent misrepresentation claim.

The appellants, a manufacturer of assembly lines, contracted to supply equipment to a German company.

When the purchaser transferred the contract to its Canadian subsidiary, the appellants requested assurances from the parent company.

The respondents provided a letter from their bank confirming project financing and the parent company's guarantee.

When the project failed due to industry collapse, the appellants sued for negligent misrepresentation, claiming the letter was misleading because it failed to disclose that the bank's financing was conditional.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the representation was true and not misleading, and that the appellants had not reasonably relied on it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding error and no denial of procedural fairness.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim.

The court considered whether the successful defendants, Sparkasse Siegen and Thomas Magnete GmbH, should receive costs on a higher scale due to settlement offers, and whether costs should be awarded against a non-party, Mr. Mellema.

The court declined to award higher scale costs, finding the plaintiffs' claim was not frivolous and their refusal to accept settlement offers was not unreasonable.

It also declined to award costs against Mr. Mellema personally, noting the defendants' awareness of his involvement and their prior opportunities to seek increased security for costs or provide notice.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to both defendants.

The plaintiffs, suppliers of automated assembly lines, sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract following the cancellation of a major auto sector project.

The plaintiffs alleged they relied on a comfort letter from the defendants regarding project financing and that a subsequent oral agreement was made for the defendants to assume the debt.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the comfort letter was not misleading and reliance on it was unreasonable given the plaintiffs' own deceptive request.

The court also found no evidence of the alleged oral agreement and held that any such claim would be barred by the Limitations Act and the Statute of Frauds.

The defendants moved to dismiss or permanently stay an Ontario action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and that Germany was the appropriate forum.

The dispute arose from agreements relating to the manufacture of automotive components and included forum selection clauses designating Germany as the place of jurisdiction and German law as governing law.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish jurisdiction simpliciter because no real and substantial connection to Ontario was demonstrated.

The court further found that the plaintiffs failed to show strong cause to depart from the contractual forum selection clauses.

Applying forum non conveniens principles, the court concluded that Germany was the more appropriate forum.