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 appellant, an international student eligible for a Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP), was offered an entry-level engineering position by the respondent employer.

The offer was conditional on proof of permanent eligibility to work in Canada (Canadian citizenship or permanent residency).

When the appellant disclosed he would be working on a PGWP, the employer withdrew the offer.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found the employer discriminated against the appellant on the basis of citizenship.

The Divisional Court set aside the tribunal's decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the tribunal's decision, holding that it was reasonable for the tribunal to find that a policy excluding PGWP-holders—who are legally entitled to work full-time in Canada—constitutes discrimination on the basis of citizenship, even if the policy excepts permanent residents.

Counsel for the corporate applicants brought a motion to be removed as counsel of record in an application for judicial review.

The applicants did not respond to the motion or attend the case conference.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to the applicants or respondents, and ordered the applicants to address proper representation under Rule 15.01(2) within 30 days, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The parties attended before the Divisional Court to advise that a conditional resolution had been reached in the application for judicial review.

On consent, the court adjourned the application to the next available date, to proceed only if the resolution is not completed.

No costs were ordered for the attendance.

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 defendant employer brought a motion to quash three Rule 39.03 summonses to witness served by the plaintiff employee in advance of a pending pleadings motion.

The plaintiff sought to strike out portions of the defendant's amended pleading alleging after-acquired cause.

The court found that the extensive list of documents requested in the summonses amounted to a fishing expedition and an attempt to initiate early discovery.

The motion was granted and the summonses were quashed as an abuse of process.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision finding it had discriminated against a job applicant on the basis of citizenship.

The employer had rescinded a job offer after discovering the applicant, an international student, lied about being eligible to work permanently in Canada.

The Divisional Court quashed the HRTO's decision, holding that it was unreasonable to conflate 'permanent residence' with 'citizenship' to find direct discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The court found that permanent residency is a separate status from citizenship, and the HRTO's expansion of the protected ground was not justified.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing its objection to the certification of a union.

The employer argued the union discriminated on the basis of age in its constitution and other collective agreements, violating s. 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's interpretation of s. 15 was reasonable and that procedural fairness was not breached when the Board dismissed the objection without an oral hearing.

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.

The plaintiff successfully obtained an interim injunction against the defendants during a labour strike that was causing significant delays to the plaintiff's operations.

The only remaining issue was the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $205,000, including significant disbursements for private investigators, while the defendants suggested $15,000.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs excessive and punitive, noting the legal and factual issues were straightforward.

The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $37,083.80, which included a significantly reduced allowance for the investigator disbursements and legal fees.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of an employee's long-term disability benefits under a collective agreement.

The hospital argued that the employee's benefits should be reduced by the amount of a disability pension she could have received had she terminated her employment.

The arbitrator found that the pension was not 'available' because electing it would require the employee to terminate her employment and forfeit significant health care benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.