Sara Yousefi

The plaintiff, a third-generation owner of a funeral home, sold his shares to the defendant and entered into a 10-year Transitional Consulting Services Agreement (TCSA).

Unhappy differences arose, leading the plaintiff to go on medical leave and claim constructive dismissal.

The court found the defendant's course of conduct, including improper termination of vehicle use, tracking hours, non-payment of commissions, removal of a photograph, and changing locks, amounted to constructive dismissal.

The plaintiff's claims for intentional infliction of mental suffering and discrimination under the Human Rights Code were dismissed.

Damages were awarded for lost salary, vehicle expenses, benefits, golf membership, and commissions.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court had previously awarded the plaintiff eight months' notice and a pro-rated bonus, totaling $106,883.02.

The plaintiff requested costs of $71,701.63 on a mixed partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendant argued the requested costs were excessive and disproportionate, suggesting $20,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, found the plaintiff's counsel's time spent disproportionate to the case's complexity, despite the plaintiff's success and a favourable offer to settle.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $35,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The core issue was the enforceability of a termination clause that the plaintiff argued contracted out of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) by failing to explicitly provide for severance and benefit continuation.

The court found the termination clause unenforceable because it potentially provided less than the ESA minimums.

The plaintiff was awarded 8 months' reasonable notice at common law and compensation for lost bonuses during the notice period, as the bonuses were found to be an integral, non-discretionary part of his compensation.

The claim for lost benefits was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of actual loss.