Prakash Pooran

The defendants sought clarification of a trial decision regarding the quantum of overtime payable to the plaintiff, arguing that business closures and vacations should reduce the amount.

They also asked the court to revisit a finding regarding a fraudulent withdrawal of cheques.

Applying Rule 59.06(1), the court held it could only correct accidental slips or omissions.

The court found no evidence to support reducing overtime for business closures or family vacations, as the plaintiff was not cross-examined on these points.

However, the court corrected its original decision to exclude overtime for two specific vacation periods taken by the plaintiff.

The court declined to change its finding on the fraudulent cheques, noting the timeline of the cheques supported the original conclusion.

The plaintiff worked as a live-in caregiver and housekeeper for the defendants, who were her sister and brother-in-law, for nine years.

After her employment ended, she sued for unpaid wages, overtime, unauthorized withdrawals from her bank account, and wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the limitation period did not bar her claims due to fraudulent concealment and her inability to discover the underpayments.

The court determined she was dismissed without cause, awarded 10 months' reasonable notice, ordered repayment of unauthorized withdrawals made under a power of attorney, and found she was entitled to overtime pay for working 58 hours per week.

Claims for punitive damages and a higher oral contract salary were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a construction defect claim on the basis that it was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action concerned alleged deficiencies in the installation of exterior stone veneer, which caused persistent efflorescence and latent moisture problems.

The court considered the discoverability principle and whether the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the material facts giving rise to the claim.

It held that the plaintiffs reasonably relied on earlier assurances from the contractor and manufacturer that the efflorescence was normal and did not discover the latent defect until a manufacturer’s representative suggested installation deficiencies in August 2010, followed by expert reports.

As the statement of claim was issued within two years of that discovery, the limitation period had not expired and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.