Rahul Soni

Following a successful wrongful dismissal claim in which the plaintiff was entirely successful, the court considered costs.

The plaintiff sought partial costs of $80,000 (with substantial costs calculated at approximately $115,000) plus disbursements.

The court found that the matter was not complex and that the defendant had unreasonably delayed proceedings, including failure to cooperate in scheduling discoveries and providing late answers to undertakings.

The court awarded counsel fees of $50,000 plus HST and disbursements of $3,846.70 plus HST, declining to award the full amount sought given the short and uncomplicated nature of the trial.

A long-serving employee brought a claim for constructive wrongful dismissal against his employer, a municipal taxi licensing commission.

The plaintiff alleged that following a change in board leadership in December 2019, he was subjected to a campaign of belittlement, micromanagement, and harassment that created a toxic work environment, ultimately forcing him to take stress leave.

The employer denied wrongful dismissal, arguing the plaintiff quit and defended its actions by alleging numerous instances of misconduct and dereliction of duty.

The court found the plaintiff credible and established that he was constructively dismissed due to the employer's breach of the implied duty to treat him with respect and decency.

The court awarded 24 months' notice plus aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a motor vehicle accident case, finding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the location of the vehicles at the time of the collision and the potential contributory negligence of the parties.

The decision reviews the summary judgment test, the reverse onus in rear-end collisions, and the application of negligence principles, concluding that conflicting evidence and credibility issues require a full trial.

The plaintiff sought a last-minute adjournment of a trial scheduled for May 27, 2024, after retaining new counsel on the morning of trial.

The plaintiff had previously been ordered to proceed peremptorily after his former counsel was removed from the record.

The court applied the Khimji factors and denied the adjournment, finding significant prejudice to the defendant, who had been waiting for trial since 2022, and emphasizing the need to enforce court orders and maintain the administration of justice.

This appeal concerned a failed residential real estate transaction where the buyers' financing fell through, leading the sellers to terminate the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and retain the deposit.

The sellers subsequently resold the property for a higher price.

The buyers sought specific performance, damages, or relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the sellers were entitled to terminate the APS as they were ready, willing, and able to close, and that relief from forfeiture was not warranted, despite the sellers realizing a profit on the resale.

The court also addressed the duty of honest performance and the effect of anticipatory repudiation.

The plaintiff, a former real estate agent for the defendant brokerage, brought a motion for an order under Rule 45.02 or an injunction requiring the defendant to set aside commission funds from transactions he closed.

The plaintiff also sought to strike the Statement of Defence or demand particulars.

The court denied the injunction but granted the Rule 45.02 order, finding the plaintiff had a right to a specific fund of commissions.

The defendant was ordered to provide an accounting, pay existing held funds into court, and set aside 12.5% of gross commissions on an ongoing basis.

The defendant was also ordered to provide particulars.