7 total
The court awarded contractual and tort damages following a messy corporate breakup but dismissed the counterclaim for fiduciary breaches.
The plaintiffs, GS International Holdings Ltd. and Yin Wu, brought a $5 million action for contractual debt, business defamation, and intentional interference with economic relations against Smart Vision Direct Inc., Galaxy Security Corporation, and Li Fang Chen.
The defendants counterclaimed for $30 million, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and contractual breaches by the plaintiffs and other parties.
The court found Annie Chen (Li Fang Chen) liable for contractual debt ($122,000 to GS International, $30,000 to Gabriel Wu/Yin Wu) and for intentional interference with economic relations ($40,000 to GS International) and defamation ($2,000 to Gabriel Wu).
The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding no breach of fiduciary duty or restrictive covenant by the defendants to counterclaim, largely due to the vague and contradictory nature of the post-separation business agreement and insufficient evidence of damages.
Successful defendant awarded $143,978 in partial indemnity costs; elevated costs denied as settlement offer was nominal.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, the successful defendant sought costs of $210,000, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of its $25,000 offer to settle.
The plaintiff argued for no costs due to impecuniosity or a reduced amount due to divided success and the reasonableness of her claim.
The court found insufficient evidence of impecuniosity and held that the defendant's offer, being only slightly above nuisance value, did not warrant elevated costs under Rule 49.10(2).
The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $143,978.67, noting the need to balance the successful party's entitlement with access to justice concerns.
Wrongful dismissal claim dismissed as executive director's financial misconduct and poor judgment justified termination for cause.
The plaintiff, a long-term executive director of a not-for-profit chamber of commerce, sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.
The employer alleged the plaintiff breached her fiduciary duties through various financial irregularities, including altering a banking document, taking unauthorized vacation pay, and allowing an unauthorized pay raise to continue.
The court found that the plaintiff was a fiduciary and that her cumulative misconduct and poor judgment irredeemably fractured the employer's trust.
The court concluded the employer had just cause for termination and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for notice, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.
Evidentiary objection dismissed; recall of witness, not exclusion of evidence, is the appropriate remedy for Browne and Dunn breaches.
During a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff objected to the defendant adducing evidence of financial irregularities, arguing the defendant breached the rule in Browne and Dunn by failing to confront her with this evidence during cross-examination.
The court dismissed the objection, finding the defendant had generally met its obligations as the plaintiff was well aware of the allegations from pleadings and discovery.
The court held that the appropriate remedy for any specific transactions not put to the plaintiff would be to recall her to testify, rather than excluding the defendant's evidence.
Interlocutory injunction granted for defamation and computer interference, but denied for trademark dispute and cross-motion.
The plaintiffs and defendants, former business partners in the security surveillance equipment industry, brought competing motions for interlocutory injunctive relief following a bitter separation.
The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from using a disputed trademark, accessing the plaintiffs' computer systems, and making defamatory statements.
The defendants cross-moved to enjoin the plaintiffs from competing and soliciting customers.
The court dismissed the trademark injunction, finding damages were an adequate remedy, but granted the injunctions regarding computer access, website redirection, and defamation.
The defendants' cross-motion was dismissed as premature and lacking evidence of irreparable harm.
Tribunal grants applicant's request to amend human rights application but denies production of unavailable text messages.
The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested to amend his application to add marital status as a ground of discrimination and to increase the damages sought.
He also sought production of text messages and certain invoices from the respondent.
The Tribunal granted the requests to amend the application, finding no prejudice or delay.
The Tribunal denied the request for production of text messages as the respondent no longer possessed them, and denied the request for invoices outside the period for which the respondent claimed undue hardship.
Tribunal declines to dismiss human rights application at preliminary stage, finding evidence required on delay and overlap.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal following his resignation and a subsequent Employment Standards Act complaint.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on preliminary grounds, arguing that the substance was dealt with in the ESA proceeding, that the application was filed out of time, and that the allegations did not engage the Code.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at the preliminary stage, finding that evidence was required to determine whether the ESA proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, whether there was a good faith explanation for the delay, and whether the allegations involved the Code.
