Richard John Nixon

This is a costs decision following a successful summary judgment motion.

The defendants, represented by Dave Griffiths and others, succeeded in having the action dismissed based on the ultimate limitation period.

The court considered the parties' bills of costs, the complexity and importance of the case, and the lack of detail in the bills.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $80,000, all-inclusive, in favour of the defendants, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate in the circumstances.

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action as statute-barred under the 15-year ultimate limitation period in the Limitation Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs, Bruce G. Johnston and Judith A. Walker, claimed wrongful expulsion from their union and denial of full pension benefits.

The court found that all material facts were known or discoverable by 1994/95, and the ultimate limitation period had expired long before the action was commenced in 2021.

The court also rejected arguments based on concealment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and the expulsion being void ab initio.

The South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario and the Colour of Poverty/Colour of Change Network sought leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal concerning an employer's policy requiring permanent residency for job applicants, which was alleged to be discriminatory on the basis of citizenship.

The employer opposed the intervention, while the original applicant and tribunal took no position.

The court granted intervener status, finding that the appeal raised issues of public importance regarding the interpretation of human rights legislation and that the proposed interveners possessed expertise to offer a useful and distinct perspective on the Post-Graduation Work Permit program and partial discrimination.

The appellant employer appealed and the respondent employees cross-appealed from a motion judge's orders awarding wrongful dismissal damages following the dismissal of the respondents without cause after the sale of part of the employer's retail business.

The appeal addressed whether the respondents failed to mitigate damages by refusing comparable employment with the purchaser, and whether damages for employment benefits should be reduced by pension benefits received.

The cross-appeal concerned the calculation of damages for lost Savings Plan contributions.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not err in determining the offered employment was not comparable and that pension benefits should not be deducted.

The court allowed the cross-appeal, finding the motion judge erred in calculating Savings Plan contributions at 3% rather than 6%.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the court determined damages and costs following a summary judgment on liability.

The plaintiffs sought compensation for 26 months' notice, including pension contributions, Savings Plan contributions, and loss of benefits.

The defendant argued for deductions based on an expert report indicating an increase in the commuted value of the plaintiffs' pensions due to early termination, and disputed benefit calculations.

The court rejected the defendant's argument for pension value deductions, applying the principles from *IBM Canada Limited v. Waterman* that pension benefits are a form of retirement savings, not an indemnity for wage loss, and should not be deducted.

It also rejected the plaintiffs' claim for notional pension contributions, as no actual pension loss was proven.

For the Savings Plan, the court awarded 3% contributions throughout the notice period, finding that the plaintiffs should not be penalized for a plan change they could not elect to avoid due to termination.

For lost benefits, the court awarded 8% of base salary, based on the defendant's own evidence and the principle that retirement benefits do not offset lost employment benefits.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages of $328,505.00 and $260,640.60 respectively, plus pre-judgment interest, and costs of $75,000.