3 total
Excessive time dockets led to major reduction in partial indemnity costs.
Following a wrongful dismissal trial in which the plaintiff recovered damages for reasonable notice, the court determined costs and interest.
The plaintiff sought over $101,000 in costs, but the court found counsel had recorded excessive and unreasonable time on a relatively straightforward file.
Applying the principles of reasonableness, indemnity, and what the unsuccessful party could reasonably have expected to pay, the court reduced the claim substantially.
Interest of $10,770.09 was awarded, and costs were fixed at $42,000 inclusive of HST on a partial indemnity basis, excluding mediation costs.
Short‑service executive awarded 14 months’ notice due to inducement and senior position.
A senior logistics executive sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without adequate notice less than three years after recruitment to serve as country manager of Canadian operations.
The court applied the Bardal factors, considering the employee’s age, senior management responsibilities over a large national operation, limited comparable employment opportunities, and evidence of inducement from secure prior employment.
The court also considered the requirement that the employee make a substantial investment in an affiliated company as creating an implied expectation of longer‑term employment.
Despite the short tenure, these factors justified a lengthy notice period.
Reasonable notice was fixed at 14 months and damages were awarded after deducting mitigation earnings and payments already received.
Appeal challenging Ontario's jurisdiction over a fraud action dismissed; real and substantial connection established.
The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to challenge Ontario's jurisdiction and stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.
The respondent alleged the appellants conspired to defraud it of over $2,000,000.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that a presumptive connecting factor existed (a tort committed in Ontario) and that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of a real and substantial connection.
The Court also found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that Ontario was the appropriate forum.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
