Ryan Watkins

The defendants' counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record shortly before a scheduled wrongful dismissal trial.

The plaintiff opposed any adjournment of the trial date but did not oppose the removal of counsel.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel due to a breakdown in the relationship and lack of instructions following a corporate acquisition.

However, the court refused to adjourn the trial date, finding that the corporate defendant had ignored the approaching trial and that an adjournment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion seeking removal of the plaintiff’s counsel on the basis that the lawyer, who was also the plaintiff’s spouse, might be called as a witness at trial in a wrongful dismissal and workplace harassment action.

The court applied the test outlined in Mazinani v. Bindoo and considered the relevant Essa factors governing when counsel should be removed due to a potential witness role.

The court found there was not a significant likelihood that counsel would be required as a witness and that any potential evidence related to a single undisputed meeting would have minimal probative value.

Additionally, other relevant information would be protected by spousal communications privilege under s. 11 of the Evidence Act.

The motion to remove the lawyer was therefore dismissed.

Following a successful summary judgment motion enforcing an indemnity agreement relating to a Tarion bond, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs and supplementary damages for additional bond payments and insurance premiums incurred after judgment.

The defendants argued that costs should be limited to partial indemnity and significantly reduced.

Applying the principle that costs should reflect a fair and reasonable amount rather than exact reimbursement, the court fixed costs at $20,427.52 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable jointly and severally by three individual defendants.

The court also granted supplementary partial summary judgment for additional indemnity obligations arising after the earlier judgment.

The defendants were ordered to pay $26,050.50 for additional bond payments, premiums, and contractual interest.