Hucsko v. A.O. Smith Enterprises Limited
[Indexed as: Hucsko v. A.O. Smith Enterprises Ltd.]
Ontario Reports Ontario Superior Court of Justice Taylor J. March 3, 2020 150 O.R. (3d) 43 | 2020 ONSC 1346
Case Summary
Employment — Wrongful dismissal — Cause for dismissal — Sexual harassment — Employer finding employee to have made inappropriate comments to co-worker and asked to take training and apologize — Employee seeking legal advance and agreeing to training but not to apology — Employer dismissing employee for irreparable breakdown of employment relationship — Employer apparently motivated to dismiss by employee's reaction to legal advice rather than by alleged harassment.
Employment — Wrongful dismissal — Notice — Damages — Deductions — Mitigation — Plaintiff, senior product designer, dismissed without cause after 20 years — 60-year-old plaintiff unlikely to find alternative employment in his field — Employer offered no outplacement services or reference letter — Appropriate notice period 20 months with no deduction for failure to mitigate.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant. A co-worker of the plaintiff complained to the defendant about four separate comments, made to her by the plaintiff, that she considered inappropriate. As a result of the complaints, the plaintiff was summoned to a meeting with the Human Resources Manager and the Director of Finance and Administration and told that he was the subject of an investigation of sexual harassment. At that meeting he did not specifically recall making three of the comments but did not deny making them, and provided an explanation for the fourth. After interviewing other employees, including the complainant, the two investigators concluded that the plaintiff's comments were intended to upset the complainant. The plaintiff was informed of the conclusion and instructed that he would be required to take additional training and apologize directly to the complainant. The plaintiff obtained legal advice. His lawyer informed the defendant by letter that he would participate in any required training but that he would not make an apology admitting any wrongdoing on his part. Upon receipt of the letter, the defendant first suspended the plaintiff and then later the same day terminated him immediately for cause for "an irreparable breakdown of the employment relationship" based on the comments he made, his failure to show remorse, and wilful insubordination in the form of refusing to accept and comply with recommended corrective action. The plaintiff was 60 years of age and had worked for the defendant for 20 years, for the past 11 years as Senior Product Designer. He brought an action for damages.
Held, the action should be allowed.
The plaintiff's conduct did not justify a conclusion that there had been an irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship. The defendant did not dismiss the plaintiff because of a finding of sexual harassment. It appeared that the reason for the dismissal was the plaintiff's serious and wilful insubordination in response to a direction from the defendant, presumably being the apology. Rather than responding to the lawyer's letter and attempting to negotiate the wording of an apology acceptable to both parties, the defendant chose termination. An important factor in that termination was the fact that the plaintiff had consulted a lawyer. That was not a justifiable reason to dismiss an employee of long service. The defendant was entitled to terminate on the basis of an incompatible working relationship with a colleague, but was not entitled to create a situation in which it relied on just cause to terminate.
A reasonable notice period was 20 months. The plaintiff worked in a specialized, technical job in a relatively narrow area. The defendant offered neither outplacement counselling nor a reference letter, and there was no evidence that alternative employment was reasonably available in the plaintiff's field, so there was no reduction in the notice period for failure to mitigate. The defendant had conducted a reasonable investigation into the complaint such that the plaintiff was not entitled to aggravated or punitive damages. He was awarded damages of $187,000 plus pre-judgment interest.
Cases referred to
- Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., [1960] O.J. No. 149, 24 D.L.R. (2d) 140, [1960] O.W.N. 253
- McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161, [2001] S.C.J. No. 40
- Michaels v. Red Deer College, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324 (S.C.C.)
- Tong v. Home Depot of Canada Inc., [2004] O.J. No. 3458, [2004] O.T.C. 312, 39 C.C.E.L. (3d) 59, 130 ACWS (3d) 539
ACTION for damages for dismissal without cause.
Pamela Krauss and Holly Gomes, for plaintiff. Paul Boshyk and Kristen Pennington, for defendant.
G.E. TAYLOR J. —
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff worked as a Senior Product Designer for the defendant from 1997 to July 25, 2017 when his employment was summarily terminated. The reason for termination was "irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship". The plaintiff was given no notice of the termination of his employment and was not provided with severance pay in lieu of notice. The plaintiff has brought this action seeking damages arising out of the termination of his employment including damages for lack of notice, aggravated damages, damages for intentional infliction of mental distress, punitive damages and for reimbursement of expenses incurred in seeking alternate employment. During the course of the trial, the plaintiff abandoned the claim for intentional infliction of mental distress.
[2] The plaintiff was born on March 31, 1957. He was 62 years of age at the time of the trial. He graduated from Fanshawe College in 1979 with a diploma in engineering technology. He was hired by a predecessor of the defendant in 1997 as a Product Engineering Supervisor. By 1999 he was a Product Engineering Manager. In 2006, when the defendant acquired the company the plaintiff was working for, his position was that of Senior Product Designer. He continued to hold that position up until the date of the termination of his employment.
Incidents of Alleged Harassment
[3] Samar Niazi began her employment with the defendant in 2014 as a Project Manager. In her position she interacted with the plaintiff but their lines of report were different. The plaintiff worked on projects being managed by Samar Niazi.
[4] On June 28, 2017, Samar Niazi made a complaint to Nodine Kalcic, the Human Resources Manager of the defendant, regarding four incidents involving her and the plaintiff.
[5] She reported that on the day following a managers' dinner meeting, during the course of a conversation with the plaintiff about the previous evening, she said everyone "had a good time". The plaintiff then asked if she had danced on the tables. She told him that his comment was inappropriate and she terminated the conversation.
[6] The second incident reported by Samar Niazi involved a conversation between she, the plaintiff and Aymen Abdel-Rehim, the Product Development Engineering Manager of the defendant and the plaintiff's immediate superior. They were discussing the next step to be taken on a project. The plaintiff said to her that she needed to go and sit on a male coworker's lap and ask him nicely to provide information which was needed. She said both she and Aymen Abdel-Rehim told the plaintiff that his comment was inappropriate. In her written complaint, Samar Niazi did not provide dates on which the first two incidents occurred.
[7] The third incident occurred during the week of June 19, 2017. She was at the plaintiff's desk. They had a discussion about gardening. The plaintiff said to her that any reason for her to bend over and go down on her knees was good. She did not say anything and walked away from the plaintiff's desk.
[8] The fourth incident occurred on June 26, 2017. This interaction again occurred at the plaintiff's desk. They were discussing a PowerPoint presentation about a project on which they were both working. The plaintiff began composing an email. Samar Niazi's name was the first of the recipients. She made a comment about being at the top of the list. The plaintiff responded by saying "of course you are on top, you are getting pumped from under the skirt so you cannot stand anymore". As he made this comment the plaintiff made multiple thrusting gestures with his hips. She was shocked by the comment and the gesture. She decided to make a report to Human Resources.
[9] I propose to refer to the four incidents reported by Samar Niazi to Human Resources by using the following short forms:
- the dancing on tables comment;
- the sit on lap comment;
- the down on your knees comment; and,
- the pump the skirt comment.
[10] Samar Niazi testified that she took the dancing on tables comment to be a reference to exotic dancing. She understood the sit on lap comment to be a reference to lap dancing and flirting with a coworker. She thought the down on your knees comment was reference to a sexual position. She interpreted the pump the skirt comment to be reference to a sexual act.
[11] The plaintiff testified about each of the four incidents.
[12] With respect to the dancing on tables comment, the plaintiff testified that he and Samar Niazi had a discussion before the managers' dinner about her not wanting to attend. He encouraged her to go to the dinner meeting. The next day Samar Niazi said she was very happy she had gone to the dinner meeting and everyone enjoyed themselves. The plaintiff asked if everyone was dancing on the tables. He meant this to suggest that everyone had had a lot of fun.
[13] The plaintiff testified that in a meeting with Aymen Abdel-Rehim and himself, Samar Niazi was complaining about not receiving necessary information from another coworker by the name of Simon. The plaintiff said he told her to sit on him until he produced the information she needed. He said he intended to convey to Samar Niazi that she had to pin down the coworker until she received the information she required.
[14] The plaintiff explained that the down on your knees comment was made during the course of a conversation he had with Samar Niazi about gardening. He said he suggested that she use a kneeling pad while removing weeds from her lawn. He said he did not make a thrusting gesture with his hips. Rather, his chair became stuck in a rut in the carpet in his cubicle which necessitated a thrusting type gesture to extract the chair from the rut in the carpet.
[15] With respect to the pump the skirt comment, the plaintiff testified that he and Samar Niazi were discussing a difficult project which they had both worked on and which was nearing completion. She was the Project Manager. He told her that she would be the subject of much praise for bringing the project to a successful completion. According to the plaintiff he told Samar Niazi that she was going to have so much sunshine pumped up her skirt that she would not be able to sit down. He explained this to be a colloquialism from a 1970s movie. It means to praise someone or give someone a lot of credit.
[16] Samar Niazi was not cross-examined.
The Investigation
[17] As a result of the complaints made by Samar Niazi, the defendant appointed John Weiler, the defendant's Director of Finance and Administration and Nodine Kalcic to conduct an investigation.
[18] Nodine Kalcic contacted the plaintiff on June 29, 2017 and asked him to come to her office but she did not tell the plaintiff why she wanted to speak with him. The meeting lasted a little more than an hour beginning at approximately 11:30 a.m. John Weiler was also present.
[19] The plaintiff testified that before he received the message to attend at Nodine Kalcic's office he had been told by Aymen Abdel-Rehim that he was in trouble with Human Resources but no reason was given. When he arrived at Nodine Kalcic's office, the plaintiff was surprised to find John Weiler present. He was told that he was the subject of an investigation about sexual harassment. He was not given any details about the complaint or the complainant. He said he was not going to say very much until he knew the identity of the complainant and the subject of the complaint. He was then told that the complainant was Samar Niazi and he was provided with a summary of the four incidents about which she had complained.
[20] Nodine Kalcic testified that after receiving the written complaint from Samar Niazi, she contacted the plaintiff and asked him to come to her office. She did not tell him why she wanted to speak to him. John Weiler was also present at the meeting. Nodine Kalcic testified that the complaints made by Samar Niazi were reviewed with the plaintiff but he was not given a copy of the written complaint submitted by Samar Niazi to Nodine Kalcic.
[21] The plaintiff explained that the pump the skirt comment was a colloquialism about pumping sunshine up one's skirt meaning to give a person a lot of praise. The plaintiff said he could not recall any conversation with Samar Niazi about dancing on tables but if he made such a comment it was a colloquialism about having a good time. The plaintiff did not have a specific recollection of the meeting at which the sit on lap comment was made but he explained that it meant to pin someone down so they could not get away. It did not have a sexual connotation. The plaintiff did not recall making the down on your knees comment but he did say that he and Samar Niazi had discussed gardening.
[22] During the initial meeting, the plaintiff suggested that the complaints were motivated because he had challenged Samar Niazi at a recent meeting. He suggested the names of other employees of the defendant who should be interviewed.
[23] John Weiler testified that at the initial meeting with the plaintiff it was explained that a complaint had been received from Samar Niazi about inappropriate comments made by the plaintiff. He said the specific complaints were read to the plaintiff. He said the plaintiff did not recall the dancing on tables comment but suggested wording that he might have used. The plaintiff did not recall the sit on lap comment but did not deny making it. The plaintiff did not recall the down on your knees comment but he did not deny making it. John Weiler recalled the plaintiff suggesting that the complaints made against him were as a result of him challenging Samar Niazi at a meeting about two weeks previously.
[24] The next person to be interviewed was Hubert Van Oosten. According to Nodine Kalcic, the interview lasted five minutes. Hubert Van Oosten mentioned a recent meeting at which Samar Niazi became very upset with the plaintiff. The plaintiff left the meeting before it was over. Hubert Van Oosten said he thought the plaintiff acted professionally by removing himself from the meeting.
[25] On July 5, 2017, Nodine Kalcic and John Weiler interviewed Aymen Abdel-Rehim. He confirmed that he had been present when the sit on lap comment had been made. He said he told the plaintiff the comment was not appropriate but he did not treat it seriously enough to make a report to Human Resources. He also said that Samar Niazi could be sensitive to comments made to her.
[26] On July 6, 2017, Nodine Kalcic and John Weiler interviewed Samar Niazi. She was asked what she was expecting to arise out of her complaints about the plaintiff. According to Nodine Kalcic, Samar Niazi said that if all the plaintiff was given was a slap on the hand she would have to decide whether she would resign from her position with the defendant. John Weiler said Samar Niazi was asked what she required to resolve the issue. She said she wanted the comments to stop and she wanted the plaintiff to recognize that his comments were unwelcome. Samar Niazi was not asked about the plaintiff's allegation that her complaints were made as a result of being upset with the plaintiff arising out of a disagreement at a recent business meeting.
[27] Nodine Kalcic and John Weiler interviewed an employee of the defendant by the name of Patricia Kirschner on July 7, 2017. She was asked if she had ever witnessed anyone making inappropriate comments. The plaintiff's name was not mentioned. She said she had not observed anyone making inappropriate comments.
[28] On July 6, 2017 the plaintiff sought out Nadine Kalcic and John Weiler and requested a further meeting with them. At that time he provided an explanation for the hip thrusting gesture described by Samar Niazi in connection with the pump the skirt comment. He said it was as a result of his chair becoming stuck in a rut in the carpet in his cubicle. He also explained that the dancing on tables comment had been directed at the group who attended the dinner meeting and was not specifically directed at Samar Niazi.
[29] Nodine Kalcic inspected the plaintiff's work cubicle when the plaintiff was not present. She noticed the carpet was worn but she was unable to locate a rut which would cause the chair to become stuck when moved. Nadine Kalcic also searched the internet and found a reference to dancing on tables consistent with the colloquialism explanation by the plaintiff. John Weiler searched the internet and found a reference from a movie in the 1970s about pumping sunshine up one's skirt being a form of praise.
[30] Nodine Kalcic took vacation following the second meeting with the plaintiff. Before beginning her vacation, she and John Weiler met to discuss their conclusions. Nodine Kalcic concluded that the plaintiff's comments amounted to harassment. John Weiler testified that he and Nodine Kalcic concluded that each of the comments alleged by Samar Niazi had in fact been made by the plaintiff. They concluded that the comments made by the plaintiff were intended to upset Samar Niazi.
The Termination
[31] John Weiler and Mary Shannon met with the plaintiff on July 10, 2017 for the purpose of reviewing the results of the investigation. The plaintiff was given a memo in which the conclusions reached in the investigation were set out and corrective action required to be taken by the plaintiff was specified. The corrective action included the plaintiff taking additional training and to provide an apology to Samar Niazi. Regarding the apology, the memo stated: "You will be required to provide a direct apology to the female employee to whom you directed your inappropriate comments. Your supervisor and Human Resources Manager will also be present."
[32] The plaintiff disputed the conclusions reached. He asserted that he had not done or said anything inappropriate to Samar Niazi. The plaintiff asked for time to seek advice.
[33] The plaintiff obtained legal advice. His lawyer sent a letter to the defendant dated July 19, 2017. In that letter, counsel for the plaintiff stated that he would participate in any training directed by the company that he take. However, the letter also stated that the plaintiff was not prepared to make an apology admitting any wrongdoing on his part.
[34] After receiving the letter from the plaintiff's lawyer, the defendant suspended the plaintiff. The defendant did not respond to the letter from counsel for the plaintiff. On July 25, 2017, Nodine Kalcic telephoned the plaintiff. She and Dave Hammond, the defendant's General Manager, participated in the call. Dave Hammond read a letter dated July 25, 2017 which was subsequently delivered to the plaintiff. The letter stated that the plaintiff's employment was being terminated for cause effective immediately. The reason for the termination was "an irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship" based on the following:
(a) making inappropriate and vexatious comments to a coworker; (b) the failure to show remorse; and, (c) wilful insubordination based on a refusal to accept and comply with corrective action determined to be appropriate by the defendant.
[35] In cross-examination, John Weiler testified that the direct apology that the plaintiff was told he had to make to Samar Niazi in the memo dated July 10, 2017 did not have to be in person. He said the apology could either be written or verbal. He said it was up to the plaintiff to decide the wording of the apology. He indicated that an apology from the plaintiff to the effect that he was sorry that Samar Niazi misunderstood his comments would have been acceptable. However, the plaintiff was never so advised.
[36] The Service Canada Record of Employment provided to the plaintiff contained in a section entitled Comments in which the words "No longer a fit" were contained.
[37] John Weiler and Mary Shannon met with Samar Niazi on July 17-18, 2017. At the meeting, Samar Niazi was given a memo dated July 14, 2017 summarizing the conclusions of the investigation. The memo stated: "The Company has conducted an investigation and though we could not confirm all your allegations there was enough evidence to substantiate that inappropriate comments were made."
[38] At the post investigation meeting with Samar Niazi, she stated that she would not accept an apology from the plaintiff to the effect that he was sorry she had misinterpreted his comments. She also made it clear that she was going to speak to her superior in the United States.
Discussion
[39] When an employer alleges cause for termination of employment, the onus is on the employer to prove that just cause existed (Tong v. Home Depot of Canada Inc., [2004] O.J. No. 3458, [2004] O.T.C. 312, para. 9). To determine if an employer is justified in terminating an employee for cause, the misconduct said to justify the dismissal must be assessed in context. A balance must be struck between the severity of the employee's misconduct and the sanction imposed (McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161, [2001] S.C.J. No. 40, paras. 48, 51 and 53).
[40] The focus of this trial was about whether the comments made by the plaintiff to Samar Niazi amounted to sexual harassment. There was much evidence and discussion about whether the comments made by the plaintiff to Samar Niazi were sexual in nature or were harassing generally. Because of the view I take of the evidence, it is unnecessary to categorize the comments made by the plaintiff. It is unclear to me whether the defendant concluded that the plaintiff's conduct amounted to sexual harassment. Regardless of how the plaintiff's comments were categorized, they did not justify summary termination of the plaintiff's employment.
[41] The defendant did not dismiss the plaintiff because of a finding of sexual harassment. Rather, it appears that the reason for dismissal was the plaintiff's serious and wilful insubordination in response to a direction from the defendant. The nature of the insubordination is not specified in the letter of termination but presumably it refers to an apology to Samar Niazi.
[42] The memo dated July 10, 2017 which was given to the plaintiff makes it clear that a finding of inappropriate comments had been made. It is also clear from that memo that the defendant did not feel the conduct was such as to justify termination. The defendant required the plaintiff to engage in some type of training and to provide a direct apology to Samar Niazi. However, the plaintiff was not advised that the direct apology could be a written apology drafted by the plaintiff and apologizing for nothing more than Samar Niazi misunderstanding his comments.
[43] The letter of termination referred to "inappropriate and vexatious comments" having been made to another employee. The Record of Employment issued to the plaintiff suggested that his employment was terminated because he was "no longer a fit".
[44] The termination of the plaintiff's employment followed quickly after receipt of a letter from the plaintiff's lawyer. Rather than responding to counsel's letter and attempting to negotiate the wording of a letter of apology acceptable to both plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant chose to end the plaintiff's 20 years of employment. I conclude that an important factor in the defendant's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment was that he had consulted a lawyer. This is not a justifiable reason to dismiss an employee of long service.
[45] In my view, the defendant was faced with a situation in which two employees were in a difficult working relationship. Samar Niazi had made it clear that she would not accept a token apology. She did not want the plaintiff to be given "a slap on the wrist". The defendant was entitled to make a decision about which of two employees it wished to continue to employ. The defendant was entitled to terminate the plaintiff's employment on the basis of an incompatible working relationship with Samar Niazi. What the defendant was not entitled to do was create a situation in which it could rely on just cause to terminate the plaintiff's employment.
[46] In my view, the plaintiff's conduct did not justify a conclusion that there had been an irreparable breakdown in the employment relationship.
Period of Notice
[47] In determining the appropriate period of notice, the factors to be considered include the character of the employment, the period of employment, the age of the employee and the availability of similar employment bearing in mind the experience training and qualifications of the employee (Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., 24 D.L.R. (2d) 140, [1960] O.J. No. 149).
[48] The plaintiff was 60 years of age at the time of termination. He had been employed by the defendant or a predecessor of the defendant for approximately 20 years. I conclude that he worked in a specialized, technical job in a relatively narrow area. Based on the evidence presented, there is only one other employer in Ontario operating in the same type of business as the defendant. It is uncertain if that other employer had employees performing the same type of work as the plaintiff.
[49] I agree with counsel for the plaintiff that considering all of the circumstances, a reasonable period of notice is 20 months.
Mitigation
[50] The onus is on the defendant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to find alternate employment. Additionally, the defendant must also establish, again on a balance of probabilities that, had the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to secure alternate employment, those efforts would have been successful (Michaels v. Red Deer College, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324, para. 11).
[51] I have no difficulty in concluding that the plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to find alternate employment. He made no effort to find another job. He decided, without even testing the job market that he would be unable to secure alternate employment because of his age and the circumstances of his dismissal. Susan Hucsko testified that her husband did not look for another job because he had a passion for sailing since he was a child. He had always wanted to build a sailboat. She said he enrolled in the program at Westlawn so that he could build a sailboat for them to enjoy in retirement. However, I also find that the defendant has not discharged its burden of proving that if reasonable job search efforts had been made, the plaintiff would have found another job at a similar level of remuneration as he was receiving at the time of the termination of employment.
[52] The defendant provided no assistance to the plaintiff to find alternate employment. Outplacement counselling was not offered. No reference letter was offered. As I have already indicated, there was no evidence that alternate employment was available in the plaintiff's field within a reasonable distance of the plaintiff's residence.
[53] I decline to reduce the period of notice for a failure to mitigate.
Aggravated and Punitive Damages
[54] I am satisfied that the defendant conducted a reasonable investigation into the complaint made by Samar Niazi. A number of people were interviewed and findings were made. As the memo to Samar Niazi reporting the outcome of the investigation made clear, some but not all of her allegations were substantiated. I am also of the opinion that the plaintiff responded to the investigation with an arrogant and egocentric attitude. He presented in the same way at trial. He saw himself as the victim.
[55] As I have stated previously, the defendant is entitled to conclude that two employees were incompatible with one another and therefore the employment of one had to be terminated. That was a decision the defendant was entitled to make. Such a conclusion would have been justified on the basis of the investigation.
[56] I therefore do not find that the plaintiff is entitled to aggravated or punitive damages.
Damage Calculation
[57] I have approached the calculation of the plaintiff's damages for failure to be given adequate notice of the termination of employment utilizing two different methods.
[58] According to the plaintiff's Statement of Earnings and Deductions for the pay period ending July 21, 2017 his total income to date was $62,585. The week ending July 21, 2017 was the 29th week of the year. I therefore calculate the plaintiff's weekly remuneration at the time of termination to be $2,158. I also calculate that 20 months' notice would translate into approximately 84 weeks. On this basis I calculate the plaintiff's entitlement to damages in lieu of notice to be $181,272.
[59] The defendant calculated the plaintiff's base salary at the date of termination to be $95,931. Added the base salary was $6,159 for the defendant's contribution to the plaintiff's Registered Retirement Savings Plan. Finally, the plaintiff's bonus for the calendar year 2016, which was paid in February 2017 in the amount of $7,451, was added to the other figures to arrive at a total annual remuneration of $109,541 or $9,128 monthly. Using this method of calculation the plaintiff's damages calculated as the equivalent of 20 months' salary total $182,568.
[60] Taking into consideration both methods of calculation, I fix the plaintiff's damages at $182,000 in lieu of reasonable notice.
[61] The plaintiff submits that I should arbitrarily apply a percentage of 20 per cent of base salary to account for the value of loss of benefits. No evidence was presented to support a conclusion that the value of benefits equaled 20 per cent of base salary. I decline to arbitrarily determine the value of benefits as a percentage of base salary and add that amount to the amount of damages. There is however evidence that the plaintiff incurred approximately $5,000 in expenses that would have been covered by his benefit plan during the period of notice. I will allow that amount as additional damages.
[62] I decline to award an amount in damages to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost incurred with respect to the Yacht Design Course in which he enrolled. As I have mentioned previously, I do not find this to be a true effort at mitigation. The defendant should not be required to reimburse the plaintiff for training in a lifelong passion to design and build boats.
Conclusion
[63] For these reasons I find that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for damages against the defendant in the total amount of $187,000 plus prejudgment interest.
Costs
[64] The parties are to make reasonable efforts to resolve the issue of costs. If costs cannot be resolved after such reasonable efforts have been made, the parties may make written submissions. Submissions are not to exceed three pages in length exclusive of Cost Outlines, Bills of Costs and any Offers to Settle. The plaintiff's submissions are to be delivered to my office on or before March 27, 2020. The defendant's submissions are to be delivered to my office on or before April 17, 2020. Copies of the written submissions are to be submitted to my attention at Kitchener.Superior.Court@Ontario.ca.
Action allowed.
