CITATION: Singer v Nordstrong Equipment Limited, 2017 ONSC 5906
COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-568291
DATE: 20171006
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ANDRE SINGER
Plaintiff
– and –
NORDSTRONG EQUIPMENT LIMITED
Defendant
Jeff Hopkins and Kristen Pennington, for the Plaintiff
Gerald Griffiths, for the Defendant
HEARD: September 20, 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION
DIAMOND J.:
Overview
[1] The defendant carries on business as a designer and manufacturer of conveyer and bulk material handling equipment.
[2] The plaintiff Andre Singer (“Singer”) commenced employment with the defendant (through its predecessor) in October 2005. In 2012, Singer was named the President and General Manager of Nordstrong East (a division of the defendant) operating in the province of Ontario.
[3] Singer was terminated from his employment on December 12, 2016. He subsequently commenced this proceeding seeking damages for wrongful dismissal.
[4] Singer brings this motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 20.04(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. While the defendant believes that the issue of reasonable notice can be determined by way of summary judgment, the defendant argues that the issue of Singer’s entitlement to a bonus payment for 2016 (and beyond, as described in greater detail hereinafter) amounts to a genuine issue requiring a trial.
[5] At the conclusion of the hearing of Singer’s motion for summary judgment, I took my decision under reserve
Summary Judgment
[6] Rule 20.04(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Court shall grant a summary judgment if the Court is satisfied that “there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence.” As a result of the amendments to Rule 20 introduced in 2010, the powers of the Court to grant summary judgment have been enhanced to include, inter alia, weighing the evidence, evaluating the credibility of a deponent and drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.
[7] In Hryniak v. Mauldin 2014 SCC 7, the Supreme Court of Canada held that on a motion for summary judgment the Court must first determine whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based only upon the record before the Court, without using the fact-finding powers set out in the 2010 amendments. The Court may only grant summary judgment if there is sufficient evidence to justly and fairly adjudicate the dispute, and if summary judgment would be an affordable, timely and proportionate procedure.
[8] The overarching principle is proportionality. Summary judgment ought to be granted unless the added expense and delay of a trial is necessary for a fair and just adjudication of the case.
[9] As held in Sanzone v. Schechter 2016 ONCA 566, only after the moving party discharges its evidentiary burden of proving that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial for resolution does the burden then shift to the responding party to prove that its claim has a real chance of success. The Court must address the threshold question of whether the moving party discharges its evidentiary obligation to put its best foot forward by adducing evidence on the merits.
[10] Nothing in Hyrniak or the subsequent jurisprudence displaces the onus upon a party responding to a motion for summary judgment to “lead trump or risk losing”. The Court must assume that the parties have put their best foot forward and placed all relevant evidence in the record. If the Court determines that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, the inquiry does not end there and the analysis proceeds to whether a Court can determine if the need for a trial may be avoided by use of its expanded fact-finding powers.
[11] I will now address each issue raised by the parties on Singer’s motion.
Issue #1 What is the appropriate amount of common law reasonable notice due and owing to Singer?
[12] There is no real dispute between the parties that Singer held a senior and managerial position. He reported directly to the chief financial officer of the defendant’s parent company. According to Singer, his duties and responsibilities included, inter alia:
● maintaining responsibility for overall profit and loss, sales, engineering, manufacturing and third party agency agreements;
● developing and implementing strategic plans with respect to operating costs, capital expenditures, manpower, quality improvements and costs reductions;
● providing oversight and mentoring to sales and purchasing personal; and,
● representing the defendant on external committees.
[13] There is no signed employment agreement between the parties. As such, in determining the appropriate length of reasonable notice, I am guided by the traditional criteria set forth in Bardal v. Globe and Mail. 1990 CanLII 6677 (ONSC). These criteria include the plaintiff’s age, length of service, character of employment and the availability of similar employment with regard to his experience, training and qualification. No one Bardal factor is to be given disproportionate weight over another factor, and as such I approach my task of assessing reasonable notice in a holistic manner.
[14] At the date of his termination, Singer was 53 years of age. His annual base salary was $180,000.00. He also received (a) a matching 4% contribution to a Registered Pension Plan, (b) an annual car allowance of $9,600.00 with fuel reimbursement and the use of a highway 407 transponder, (c) a paid cellular telephone and (d) participation in the defendant’s benefit plan.
[15] Singer also received an annual bonus. He submits that both his entitlement to, and the allocation of, an annual bonus was fixed and formulaic, calculated at 5% of Nordstrong East’s annual pre-tax profit. The defendant argues that both entitlement to, and allocation of, Singer’s annual bonus was always a matter of pure discretion.
[16] While I will have more to say on this issue later in these Reasons, the particulars of Singer’s bonus payments for the last six years are as follows:
| Year | Eligible Total Profits of Nordstrong East | Bonus Received by Mr. Singer | Percentage of Pre-Tax Total Profits |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | $1,034,923.00 | $56,500.00 | 5.459% |
| 2011 | $1,799,675.00 | $85,000.00 | 4.723% |
| 2012 | $2,223,203.00 | $120,000.00 | 5.398% |
| 2013 | $1,433,450.00 | $72,256.00 | 5.041% |
| 2014 | $1,069,020.00 | $64,353.00 | 6.020% |
| 2015 | $3,101,074.00 | $120,000.00 | 3.870% |
[17] Leaving aside the issue of whether Singer’s annual bonus was fixed or discretionary, as at the date of his termination, Singer’s annual remuneration was over $300,000.00.
[18] It is trite to state that the assessment of reasonable notice is an art and not a science. Both parties have provided case law which set out a range of reasonable notice periods. As held by Justice Perell in Fisher v. Hirtz 2016 ONSC 4768, “the character of employment factor tends to justify longer notice periods for senior management employees or highly skilled and specialized employees and a shorter period for lower ranked for unspecialized employees…generally speaking, a longer notice period will be justified for older, long term employees, who may be at a competitive disadvantage in securing new employment because of their age.”
[19] Singer submits that he is entitled to a reasonable notice period of 18 months, while the defendant argues that the notice period should be limited to 12 months. I have reviewed the case law provided by both parties. In my view, I find the decision of Justice Grace in Day v. JCB Excavators Ltd. 2011 ONSC 6848 to be helpful. In Day, the plaintiff was 51 years old at the date of his termination after having been employed as the defendant’s Regional Business Manager in Canada for over 14 years, earning at termination a total remuneration (salary plus commissions and bonus) of approximately $140,000.00. Justice Grace awarded the plaintiff 17 months’ payment in lieu of reasonable notice.
[20] Having reviewed the relevant jurisprudence and having considered the traditional Bardal criteria, I find Singer’s reasonable notice period to be 17 months.
Issue #2 Is Singer entitled to payment of a 2016 bonus?
[21] On the record before me, I am confident that I can find the necessary facts and apply the relevant law to the evidence, and that any potential credibility issues can be resolved without invoking the enhanced powers set out in Rule 20.04(2.2). It is therefore in the interest of affordable and proportionate justice to proceed by way of motion for summary judgment.
[22] To the extent that the defendant advances a position that Singer was required to be “actively employed” as at the date the bonus payment was earned or paid, there is no dispute that inclusive of his statutory notice under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 S.O. 2000 C.41, Singer was employed as of the end of the defendant’s fiscal year (which aligns with the calendar year).
[23] As stated, there is no signed employment agreement between the parties. In support of his position, Singer relies upon a document which he has produced in this proceeding. In or around 2009, the defendant’s parent company provided Singer (and several other employees) with a document entitled “Canerector Inc. Corporate Culture”. The following excerpts are contained in pages 17-18 of that document (my emphasis in bold):
“Incentives
With delegation goes incentives; it is unrealistic to ask division managers to be entrepreneurial if they have no incentive to do so. In the 1980’s we developed a bonus or profit sharing plan which has not changed since.
We emphasize profit, and thus the incentive plan is not tied to any indicator except profit. These bonuses are paid in January or early February after the yearly financial results are finalized. The bonus pool is 15% of the division's yearly pre-tax profit net of head office fees and putative loan interest.
Head Office fees are $4,000 per $1 million in sales or part thereof. Thus, if a business has sales of $39.5 million, its head office costs would be $160,000. This may sound like a lot of money, but it compares very favourably with head office costs at our public company competitors. Corporate Office manages banking, insurance, pension, auditing, tax planning, bonding, interdivisional meetings, salaried payroll, credit, and acquisitions on behalf of the organization. $160,000 as payment for these services is not unreasonable. What is access to a line of credit worth to an operating business? Private companies which join the organization are relieved to no longer have to deal with these matters. Units of public companies find our charges are but a fraction of what they paid their head offices.
Divisions are also billed for their portion of our out of pocket insurance, bonding, and auditing costs.
The Putative Loan interest is our current borrowing rate at the bank times the division's opening working capital (current assets minus current liabilities) minus or plus cash the division generates or uses during the year. This gives managers a strong incentive to reduce their inventories, and accelerate their payments for work in progress as much as possible. Each year, some very profitable divisions have a putative loan balance, that is, they earn interest rather than pay it. The putative loan interest mechanism is designed to equalize treatment for divisions which use a lot or a little working capital.
The bonus pool for each division is calculated using this formula, and there is no discretion involved. However, each division is encouraged to create a reserve. Here is a hypothetical example. Suppose a division has a very prosperous year and makes a pre-tax/fees/interest profit of $1 million. There would be a bonus pool available, net of head office fees and interest, of approximately $130,000. However, what if the following year the business lost $500,000? Obviously there would be no bonus payable, but it would also be unfair to have previously paid a bonus based on $1 million when in fact over two years the firm made only $500,000. Thus, over time divisions hold back a small portion of their bonuses to cover these "bad years" which we know always arrive.
I wish the bonuses were “cleaner" and we did not have any reserve, but I am not sure how we could then compensate for poor years. It would be unfair to the corporation to pay more than 15% over an entire cycle, and usually the reserve is a relatively small retention from each good year.
How is the bonus distributed? The division manager prepares a list and discusses it with Corporate Office. We give each division manager wide latitude in allocating bonuses. The division manager receives the largest bonus, which usually amounts to a third of the bonus pool in a big business and perhaps as much as half in a small one. The division managers are acutely conscious that their success depends on their colleagues, and they tend to want to spread the bonus around as much as possible. Also, the bonuses should be confidential. Managers should insist their staff avoid discussing bonuses with colleagues; otherwise this wonderful incentive can be transformed into jealousy.”
[24] Singer interprets the above passages as confirmation that, as Nordstrong East’s President and General Manager, he was entitled to a fixed bonus calculated at 5% of the defendant’s pre-tax profit. Singer further relies upon an email exchange dated February 8, 2013 between himself and Jonathan Puddy, the operations manager of the defendant’s parent company. When asked how Singer’s bonus was calculated, Puddy responded as follows:
“Most division managers propose a bonus they think they should get from the pool, and then I give them some feedback (agreed, disagree and why …). Last year you had about 37% of the pool, which makes sense to me. We feel the bonus should go to the people who are most instrumental in the generation of the profit. Smaller office managers tend to get larger percentages than their counter parts of larger offices. Division managers’ bonus fall in 25 to 50% range. Rick’s percentage was 37.3% this year, so I’m happy for the same for you (.373 x 297480 = $111k).”
[25] The defendant is essentially arguing that Singer was only “eligible” to receive an annual bonus, but not “entitled”. The defendant relies upon Fraser v. Canerector Inc. 2015 ONSC 2138, appeal dismissed 2016 ONSC 6071 (Div Ct.) in support of its position. From 2010-2016, Singer’s annual bonus was not calculated at 5% of the defendant’s annual pre-tax profit. In my view, Fraser is distinguishable on the facts of this case. While there was some inherent variability in Singer’s bonus payments from year to year, the language used in the Corporate Culture document, together with Puddy’s responding email of February 8, 2013, make it clear that, as Nordstrong East’s President, Singer was entitled to a share of the bonus pool created by the earning of a positive pre-tax profit (a bonus typically falling within the “25 to 50% range”).
[26] In my view, when the words “there is no discretion involved” are used at page 18 of the Corporate Culture Document, what is actually described as being non-discretionary is the availability of a 15% bonus pool to be allocated among each division. In other words, if a division earns profit then it is automatically entitled to a 15% bonus pool to be allocated within the division.
[27] However, what remains discretionary is how that bonus pool is allocated and ultimately paid out within the division. This is evident from the fact that Singer’s own bonus payments ranged from 3.87% to 6.02%. The discretionary nature of these payments is further highlighted by the fact that in 2015, the bonus pool was higher than ever ($3,101,074.00) and yet Singer’s percentage of those pre-tax profits was calculated at the lowest rate (3.87%) in the entire six year period.
[28] The defendant relies upon two additional documents in support of its position that no bonus payment is payable to Singer. On December 8, 2014, Singer received a mass email delivered by the CEO of the defendant’s parent company, which included the following paragraphs:
“1. Bonuses. One of the wonderful things about our company is employees share in their business’s success. This motivates them, and we are really happy they share in the results of their efforts. The bonuses are based on each employee’s contribution to profit and their hard work. The owners reserve to themselves, and have always reserved to themselves, the right to reduce bonus pool if the worsening economy or volatile business sector merits reserve. We also can (and have in the past) decided that certain employees, including division managers, should receive a smaller or large piece (or indeed, rarely, no piece) of the pie from time to time. This is our prerogative as owners and as you know we approve all bonuses and all salary increases.
At most companies, employees and division managers do not receive large bonuses. We have reviewed thousands of companies over the years, and I can only recall a handful which was generous as we are. Certainly less than one percent of those firms we have reviewed have very liquated profit sharing plans.”
[29] Approximately one month before he was terminated, Singer attended a regional divisional managers’ meeting at corporate head office. One week following that meeting, all divisional managers, including Singer, were asked to sign a document entitled “Corporate Office Policy”. Within that signed document, the following italicized paragraph is set out under a section entitled “Requirements of the General Manager”:
“GM bonuses are discretionary and based on the relevant contribution of the GM and the performance of the business. We may choose to vary GM bonuses due to lack of performance relative to requirements above, poor conduct, or excessive cost time on behalf of our corporate office at our sole discretion. Bonuses will fluctuate from year to year and may be zero.”
[30] In my view, the December 8, 2014 email amounts to no more than a unilateral representation made by the defendant’s parent company. It did not confirm any agreement between the defendant and Singer (or any other employee), nor did it amount to a confirmation or variation of any term of Singer’s employment. I do not find any basis upon which Singer knew or ought to have known that the terms of his own compensation had been varied from what was set out in the Corporate Culture Document, and implemented in each year since. The December 8, 2014 email was not a valid amendment or variation to Singer’s terms of compensation.
[31] With respect to the December 2016 policy document, in my view it amounts to no more than a confirmation of Singer’s job description as general manager. To the extent that the italicized excerpt seeks to vary or amend the existing bonus payment structure, not only does it fail to do so by reason of lack of consideration, it impliedly confirms the nature of Singer’s bonus payment structure up to that point - why else would such an italicized paragraph be inserted in the middle of this policy document if not to seek to amend an existing term? Neither the December 8, 214 email nor the December 2016 policy document vary or otherwise impact Singer’s entitlement to a share of the 2016 bonus pool.
[32] Singer relies upon the decision of my colleague D. Wilson J in Bain v UBS Securities Canada Inc., and in particular the following passage:
“Simply because a bonus is awarded in the sole discretion of an employer does not mean that it can be done in an arbitrary or unfair fashion or that the employer can decide that an employee should not get a bonus without following a fair, identifiable process. The employer may adjust the weight given to various factors, given the market conditions and other changeable criteria, but that does not obviate the requirement that the exercise must be done in a fair manner. The court must analyze the evidence in a particular case and decide whether the process that was followed was fair and reasonable.”
[33] Nordstrong East’s 2016 profits were comparable or greater than its 2015 profits. In the words of D. Wilson J., what is the “fair, identifiable process” to be followed in the circumstances of this case? The defendant takes the position that in 2015, it discovered significant shortcomings in Singer’s management and handling of the Nordstrong East’s business. According to the evidence of the defendant, Singer allegedly failed to understand “what employees were doing, the manufacturing process, and the business itself”. The defendant was hopeful that, with support, Singer could learn to better perform in the role of President and “get the business performing at a satisfactory level”.
[34] Notwithstanding these alleged concerns, in 2015 the bonus pool was higher than the previous six years. While Singer was only paid a bonus payment equivalent to 3.87% of that bonus pool, that sum amounted to $120,000.00.
[35] The defendant alleges that, as Singer did not take charge of the business throughout 2016 as was hoped, the defendant was dissatisfied with Nordstrong East’s lack of profit (as compared to those of Nordstrong West which were twice as large). The defendant submits that since entitlement and allocation of the bonus were both discretionary, no bonus would have been payable to Singer even if he remained employed in 2017.
[36] I reject the defendant’s position for the reasons previously stated. While the discretion to pay a bonus was not usually exercised until the February following the end of the fiscal/calendar year, Singer’s termination letter made no reference whatsoever to his eligibility for a 2016 bonus. I note that Singer’s termination letter also made no reference to any concerns with his job performance.
[37] There is no doubt that the percentage rates used to determine Singer’s bonus in previous years varied, and were not fixed as he alleges. I have little to no evidence before me as to why a certain percentage rate was used in the face of higher or lower profits. The record discloses that the only two Nordstrong East employees who did not receive a bonus (absent Court intervention) for the 2016 fiscal year were Singer and another employee terminated without cause on the same date.
[38] When the percentages used by the defendant from 2010-2015 to calculate Singer’s annual bonus payment are averaged, the average rate is 5.08%. It is ironic that the average rate is so close to the rate Singer claims was his alleged fixed rate (a position which I have rejected). In 2012 and 2015, the bonus pool was at its highest and Singer was paid a bonus at the exchange rates of 5.398% and 3.87% respectively. As the 2016 bonus pool is comparable to those two years, and with a view to awarding Singer a pro rata 2016 bonus commensurate with the terms of its remuneration and the reasonable expectation of the parties, I believe it fair and proper to use the average of the percentages employed in those two years and award Singer a bonus equivalent to 4.634% of the total pre-tax profit in 2016.
[39] The parties are ad idem as to what the total pre-tax profit is for the 2016 fiscal year, and they may perform this calculation themselves. If they cannot agree on the final number, they are at liberty to contact my assistant Michelle Giordano at michelle.giordano@ontario.ca to schedule a conference call for the purpose of scheduling the exchange of further written submissions.
Issue #3 Is Singer entitled to payment of a 2017 and 2018 bonus?
[40] I have found that Singer is entitled to 17 months’ reasonable notice. Singer further claims entitlement to a bonus that he would have received over that notice period (i.e. for all of 2017 and the first five months of 2018). Singer argues that it is reasonable to forecast that his bonus over the 17 month notice period would have been at least equal to his 2016 bonus.
[41] As per my comments in Fulmer v. Nordstrong Equipment Limited 2017 ONSC 5529, I believe that Singer’s argument is overreaching. The purpose of reasonable notice is to provide a terminated employee with sufficient time to locate comparable employment. Historically, bonuses were earned and calculated at the conclusion of the defendant’s fiscal/calendar year, and no doubt granted on the basis of an employee’s positive efforts and contributions to Nordstrong East’s business.
[42] Subject to successful mitigation efforts, Singer’s employment with the defendant would have ended in or around May 2018. The purpose of the defendant’s incentive plan is to maximize efforts to generate profits. As in Fulmer, I do not find it to be within Singer’s reasonable expectation to be able to earn a bonus for the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years while he searched for alternative comparable employment.
[43] I therefore decline to award Singer any bonus for the 2017 or 2018 fiscal years.
Issue #4 Is Singer entitled to compensation for loss of benefits during the 17 months’ notice period, and if so, what amount?
[44] Damages for wrongful dismissal are designed to place the terminated employee in the same position he/she would have been in but for a breach by the employer of the implied term of an employment contract to provide reasonable notice.
[45] If the purpose of damages for reasonable notice “make a plaintiff whole”, it is Singer’s onus to prove his losses incurred as a result of the termination of his employment. I do not have sufficient evidence in the record before me of Singer’s loss of benefits during the 17 months’ notice period. Singer gave no evidence that he replaced the benefits that he would have enjoyed during that notice period.
[46] Accordingly, I do not award Singer any damages for the loss of benefits during his 17 months’ notice period.
Issue #5 Did Singer discharge his duty to mitigate his losses?
[47] As a terminated employee, Singer had a duty to make reasonable efforts to mitigate his loss of income. A failure to discharge that duty can lead to the Court reducing the reasonable notice period. The onus of proving that a terminated employee failed to discharge his/her duty to mitigate rests squarely upon the employer, and that onus is typically a high one.
[48] The defendant must show that Singer failed to pursue alternative employment opportunities that were of a comparable nature, and that such opportunities were not only available, but that had Singer pursued those opportunities, he could have minimized his damages.
[49] In my view, Singer has discharged his duty to mitigate. He is to be held to standard of reasonableness and not a standard of perfection. Singer has provided a spreadsheet log of all of his job search activities dating back to early January 2017. The defendant argues that Singer failed to take any steps to inquire into eight specific positions between April – June 2017 through job alerts he received from Workopolis or Indeed.
[50] As stated, Singer is not to be held to a standard of perfection. There are numerous additional opportunities which Singer pursued from January 2017 until the present day. I find that Singer has made the necessary reasonable efforts to locate secure alternative employment, and accordingly I decline to reduce his award of 17 months’ reasonable notice.
[51] With respect to payment of the balance of the notice period, this judgment is being granted before the expiration of the notice period, and as such Singer is still subject to the duty to mitigate during the balance of the notice period (i.e. until the end of 17 months post-termination). As summarized by Justice Perell in Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc. 2015 ONSC 4189 (S.C.J.), the Court has traditionally employed three approaches to address this situation:
(a) the Contingency Approach, whereby the employee’s damages are discounted by a contingency for re-employment during the balance of the notice period;
(b) the Trust and Accounting Approach, whereby the employee is granted judgment but a trust in favour of the employer is impressed upon the judgment funds for the balance of the notice period requiring the employee to account for any mitigation income; and
(c) the Partial Summary Judgment approach, whereby the employee is granted a partial summary judgment and the parties then return to court during and/or at the end of the notice period for further payments subject to an assessment of the employee’s ongoing duty to mitigate.
[52] I am ordering a “hybrid order” somewhere between the Trust and Accounting approach and the Partial Summary Judgment approach. A trust in favour of the defendant will be impressed upon the funds paid to Singer during the balance of the notice period, but Singer is required to account to the defendant on a monthly basis with respect to his mitigation efforts and any mitigation income which he earns. This way, the potentially impractical and expensive consequences of the Partial Summary Judgment approach can hopefully be avoided by reason of the transparency of Singer accounting for his mitigation efforts and potential income on a monthly basis.
Issue #6 Is Singer entitled to aggravated or punitive damages?
[53] In support of his claim for aggravated or punitive damages, Singer points to the December 12, 2016 termination letter which provided him with 52 weeks’ reasonable notice plus payment of the defendant’s portion of his benefits contribution to maintain participation in the benefits plan until February 6, 2017.
[54] At the conclusion of that letter, the defendant indicated as follows:
“We may adjust or discontinue the foregoing salary continuance if you find alternate employment, solicit the company’s customers or employees, compete with the business or otherwise act in a manner which is harmful to the company.”
[55] As stated, there is no signed employment agreement between the parties, and thus Singer is not subject to any contractual non-solicitation and/or non-competition obligations. Singer argues that the inclusion of the above clause effectively “back-doored” a non-solicitation and non-competition term without legal justification, and enabled the defendant to vary or discontinue payment of reasonable notice as a result of an alleged breach of non-existent non-competition and non-solicitation obligations.
[56] While the above clause is arguably poorly drafted, in my view it does not amount to the type of tortious conduct which would justify an award of aggravated or punitive damages. Singer was the president of Nordstrong East, and it is certainly arguable that he could be a “key employee” for the purpose of attracting fiduciary obligations. If Singer does stand in a fiduciary position, then he could likely fall under the prohibitions set out in Canadian Aero Services Ltd. v. O’Malley 1973 CanLII 23 (S.C.C.) against unfair post-employment solicitation and/or competition.
[57] Accordingly, I decline to award Singer aggravated or punitive damages.
Costs
[58] In my view, success has arguably been divided. If the parties take a different view, I would first strongly urge them to exert the necessary efforts to try and resolve the costs of this motion, and the action itself.
[59] If such efforts prove unsuccessful, the parties may exchange written costs submissions (totaling no more than four pages including a Costs Outline) in accordance with the following schedule:
a) Singer may serve and file his costs submissions within 10 business days of the release of these Reasons.
b) the defendant shall thereafter have an additional 10 business days from the receipt of Singer’s costs submissions to deliver its responding costs submissions.
Diamond J.
Released: October 6, 2017
CITATION: Singer v Nordstrong Equipment Limited, 2017 ONSC 5906
COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-568291
DATE: 20171006
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ANDRE SINGER
Plaintiff
– and –
NORDSTRONG EQUIPMENT LIMITED
Defendant
REASONS FOR DECISION
Diamond J.
Released: October 6, 2017