Sébastien Lorquet

The plaintiff, Margaret Godard, sought partial indemnity costs after settling her claim against Intelcom Courier Canada Inc. for $70,000, four days before trial.

The court was tasked with fixing costs, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than Rule 58, as the parties had agreed to have costs fixed by a judge.

The court considered the principle of indemnity, reasonable expectations, and proportionality.

It found the plaintiff's costs claim to be reasonable overall, with a minor deduction of $497.17 for expert travel expenses that were not incurred.

The court fixed costs at $70,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, finding this amount struck an appropriate balance given the circumstances, including Intelcom's late acceptance of the settlement offer and its conduct during litigation.

This is an appeal of a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The motion judge had awarded the appellant damages equivalent to six months' reasonable notice, reduced by two months for failure to mitigate.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in reducing the appellant's damages for failure to mitigate.

Specifically, the motion judge erred in principle by suggesting the appellant should have sought lesser-paying jobs and made a palpable and overriding error by concluding the appellant "aimed too high" based solely on job titles without considering comparable duties.

The Court emphasized that the employer bears a heavy burden to prove both that the employee failed to take reasonable steps and that comparable employment would have been found.

The appeal was allowed, and the damages were based on an eight-month notice period without the two-month reduction.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $97,500, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendant had made an early Rule 49 offer to settle for $107,000, which the plaintiff did not accept.

Because the plaintiff recovered less than the defendant's offer, the court applied Rule 49.10(2) and awarded the defendant its partial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $27,000 in costs to the defendant.

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old general manager in the media industry, was terminated without cause after 5.5 years of employment.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the reasonable notice period to be 8 months.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to damages for her lost bonus, as it was an integral part of her compensation and not unambiguously excluded by her contract.

However, the notice period was reduced by 2 months because the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages, having delayed her job search and applied almost exclusively for more senior roles.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision dismissing his action for wrongful dismissal against his former employer, the Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est, and for inducing breach of contract against Jason Dupuis, the principal of École secondaire catholique Garneau.

The appellant had worked as a cultural animator since March 7, 2005 and received positive evaluations until 2008.

Thereafter, he received four formal progressive disciplinary measures and numerous warnings for defiant attitude, refusal to perform assigned tasks, and unprofessional conduct.

The trial judge found the employer had just cause for dismissal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff previously succeeded on a Rule 21 motion declaring a termination clause in the employment contract void for non‑compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court addressed the quantum of costs arising from that motion.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the indemnity principle, the court held that partial indemnity costs were appropriate because any settlement offer relating to the broader litigation could not yet be considered.

While most hours and rates claimed were reasonable given the complexity and importance of the issue, some adjustments were warranted.

The court fixed the plaintiff’s costs of the motion and determined a conditional additional amount should substantial indemnity later be awarded by the trial judge.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion to determine two questions of law following his dismissal without cause.

First, he argued that the termination clause in his employment contract was void because it excluded the continuation of group insurance benefits during the statutory notice period, contrary to the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Second, he argued he was entitled to statutory severance pay because the employer's global payroll exceeded $2.5 million, even though its Ontario payroll did not.

The court agreed on both issues, finding the termination clause null and void for violating the Act's minimum standards, and ruling that the calculation of an employer's payroll under section 64 is not restricted to wages paid in Ontario.

A motion raised a question of law concerning the enforceability of a termination clause in an employment contract under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The clause limited termination compensation to base salary and excluded commissions and the continuation of benefits.

The court held the clause violated statutory minimum standards because it attempted to exclude the employer’s obligation to maintain benefit contributions during the statutory notice period under ss. 60 and 61 of the Act.

The court further interpreted s. 64 of the Act and held that an employer’s payroll for severance eligibility includes the wages of all employees, not only those in Ontario.

The termination clause was declared void and the employer remained liable to pay statutory severance.