Richelle Pollard

At a case conference in a certified class action, the parties discussed scheduling upcoming motions.

The plaintiff sought to amend the Statement of Claim to add unjust enrichment, which the defendants opposed as it could impact the certification analysis.

The defendants proposed a motion to decertify the action due to a low number of class members.

The court scheduled the decertification motion for April 2023 and directed the plaintiff to defer their motion to amend until after the decertification motion is decided.

Following a motion for further document production where the defendant was largely successful, both parties sought costs.

The defendant claimed approximately $16,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for a portion of his costs.

The court found the defendant's claimed costs grossly excessive for a simple production motion and fixed costs at $3,000 payable by the plaintiff, with an extended time to pay due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion under Rule 30.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order requiring the defendant to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.

The court applied the test from Bow Helicopters, noting that a motion for a further and better affidavit requires evidence that specific documents exist that have not been produced, rather than mere speculation.

The court found that the defendant had complied with its production obligations and that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of specific missing documents.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was directed to resume the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for the production of emails protected by solicitor-client privilege, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The defendant sought $16,190 on an actual indemnity basis, noting an unaccepted offer to settle the motion for $5,775.

The court applied the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, awarding the successful defendant $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking the production of a chain of emails between the defendant's counsel and the defendant.

The defendant opposed the motion on the grounds of solicitor-client privilege.

After a confidential review of the emails, the court found that the communications involved instructions and legal advice between a solicitor, his law firm, and their client, and were intended to be confidential.

The motion for production was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, former insurance advisors affiliated with a large financial services company, sought payment of monthly “CORe” commissions following termination of their advisory agreements.

The agreements provided that post‑termination commissions would cease if the advisor advised, counselled, or induced clients to replace or cancel policies serviced through the company.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs breached those conditions by soliciting and transitioning hundreds of clients and significant assets to a competing business after termination.

The court held that CORe payments were conditional incentives rather than vested compensation and found that the plaintiffs had engaged in systematic replacement activities contrary to the agreements.

Relief from forfeiture and equitable claims such as quantum meruit were rejected, and the action was dismissed.

A former senior executive sued for wrongful dismissal after termination without cause.

The dispute concerned whether a later employment document replaced an earlier agreement containing a 12‑month severance clause, the appropriate reasonable notice period, and entitlement to bonus payments.

The court held the later document constituted a new employment agreement that displaced the earlier severance provision, leaving notice to be determined under the common law.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded a 12‑month reasonable notice period despite the employee’s relatively short tenure and rejected the employer’s proposed three‑month period.

The court also denied the employee’s claim to bonus payments because the bonus plan required active employment at the payout date.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action seeking damages equivalent to 24 months’ reasonable notice after being dismissed without cause following more than 22 years of employment.

The defendant argued that the notice period should be between 12 and 16 months and that the plaintiff failed to reasonably mitigate her damages.

The court held that the motion record was inadequate to resolve conflicting evidence regarding the plaintiff’s mitigation efforts and the availability of comparable employment opportunities, both of which are relevant to determining reasonable notice under the Bardal factors.

Because credibility assessments and fuller evidence were required, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was scheduled for a two‑day trial.