R. J. Haines

The plaintiff, a long‑term employee with 36 years of service, was terminated after his managerial role was eliminated during economic downturn layoffs.

The employer offered him an alternative position with lower pay, shift work, and substantially more physical demands.

The plaintiff declined and sued for wrongful dismissal.

The court held that the employer failed to prove the plaintiff had failed to mitigate his damages by refusing the alternative role, finding the job materially different given the plaintiff’s age, physical limitations, and the passage of time since he last performed that work.

Reasonable notice was set at 20 months, with damages awarded for the balance of notice after credit for severance already paid, plus medical expenses and pension loss.

The appellant manufacturer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for defective roofing shingles.

The appellant argued the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the respondent knew or ought to have known the identity of the manufacturer more than two years before commencing the action, based on correspondence from his insurer and a product colour guide in his possession.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The moving defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging defamation, fraud, conspiracy, and related misconduct arising from an alleged advance fee loan scam.

The court found that the pleadings failed to set out the essential elements of defamation, including the attribution of specific defamatory words to the moving defendants.

Although the pleading was deficient and did not comply with Rule 25.06 requirements for material facts, the court held it was not plain and obvious that the defect could not be cured by amendment.

Leave to amend was therefore granted within 30 days.

The court declined to make further orders regarding corporate representation but invited written submissions on costs.

The plaintiffs brought an action alleging they were victims of an advance fee loan scam perpetrated by the main defendant with the assistance of several lawyers and law firms.

Three groups of defendant lawyers brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court struck the negligence claims against one lawyer and his firm, finding opposing counsel owes no duty of care to the opposite party.

The court struck the claims against two other law firms but allowed the fraud claim against their partner to proceed, subject to the plaintiffs providing better particulars.

Finally, the court dismissed the claim against a third lawyer, finding it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the alleged misconduct more than two years before commencing the action.

The plaintiff accounting firm sued for payment of unpaid professional fees totaling $62,061.25 for accounting and advisory services provided to the defendants over several years.

The defendants acknowledged that services were provided but argued the bills were excessive and that their balance had previously been represented as nil.

The court accepted the credibility of the plaintiff’s principal witness and found that substantial services had been performed, but concluded the billing documentation lacked sufficient detail to justify the full claim.

The court reduced the account by approximately 15% and apportioned liability between corporate services and personal services related to matrimonial litigation.

Judgment was granted for reduced amounts against the corporate defendants and the individual defendant personally.