Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NOs.: CV-21-00671285 and CV-12- 0067180 DATE: 20220419 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Diane Ratigan, Plaintiff – AND – Premier Conferencing (Canada) Limited, Defendant

AND RE: Thomas Bouttier, Plaintiff – AND – Premier Conferencing (Canada) Limited, Defendant

BEFORE: E.M. Morgan J.

COUNSEL: Brandin O’Connor, for the Plaintiffs Ian St. John, for the Defendants

HEARD: April 19, 2022

Continued Summary Judgment

[1] On March 25, 2022, I issued an endorsement in which I granted summary judgment in the Ratigan claim and partial summary judgment in the Bouttier claim. I also ordered costs in the amount of $2,500 to each of the Plaintiffs for that appearance and partial adjournment: Ratigan and Bouttier v. Premier Conferencing, 2022 ONSC 1896.

[2] The adjournment at the last appearance was at the request of the Defendant, who sent his lawyer of record as well as a proposed new lawyer to seek it. The Defendant had ample time to prepare and file a defense to these wrongful dismissal suits, but had not done so. The only reason I was given for the adjournment request was that there had been a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship between Mr. St. John and the Defendant, and the Defendant was in the midst of changing counsel.

[3] Since liability to Ms. Ratigan was admitted and the method of payment – lump sum or monthly instalments – had become moot with the passage of time, judgment was granted in favour of Ms. Ratigan for the entire amount of her claim: $73,076.

[4] Liability to Mr. Bouttier was also admitted, but the method of payment remained contentious. Although 6 months of his 12-month notice period had already passed without the Defendant making any payments at all, the Defendant continued to insist that Mr. Bouttier was owed monthly payments rather than one lump sum payment for the notice period. I granted judgment for the 6 months of payments that had already come and gone and reserved to today’s hearing the issue of payment method for the remaining 6 months.

[5] In the meantime, the Defendant never did change counsel. Mr. St. John was forced to again attend at today’s motion without instructions from his client with respect to any defense to the claim. I understand the dilemma Mr. St. John faced with a client who he had expected to issue a Notice of Change of Solicitors but who never did, leaving him dangling on record without anything substantive to say. He did his best as an officer of the court to show respect to the judicial process. The default was that of the Defendant, not counsel.

[6] The employment agreement between Mr. Bouttier and the Defendant says that Mr. Bouttier is entitled to 12 months’ pay, relocation expenses, and RSP contributions upon termination. I see no reason why this means anything but the usual practice of payment in full upon termination; certainly, the Defendant, who has not put in any materials or made any submissions in response to this motion, has not explained why payment should not be made in a lump sum. The Defendant seems to have been more intent on seeking to adjourn and delay the process than it was on taking any real position on the merits. I granted the requested adjournment so that new counsel could present the Defendant’s position in full, but the Defendant opted not to retain new counsel after all nor to instruct existing counsel.

[7] As I indicated in my previous endorsement, the Defendant is a sophisticated litigant headquartered in the United States and had its U.S. counsel attend the last hearing to observe the proceedings. I can assume it knew what it was doing in failing to respond to the motion.

[8] Mr. Bouttier is entitled to judgment for his claim. The full 12-month claim is for $561,030.73, which includes relocation expenses and employer’s RSP contributions. From that I will subtract the $256,951.32 already awarded in my March 25, 2022 ruling, for an outstanding balance of $304,079.41.

[9] Both Plaintiffs are entitled to costs for the action. They were each entirely successful. Further, their counsel has now advised me that each had served an offer to settle under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the amount of their respective contractual entitlements minus one week’s worth of pay. Given that they have now been awarded their full entitlement, the offers were more generous to the Defendant than the award. Rule 49 provides that in these circumstances, the offerors are entitled to substantial indemnity costs.

[10] Plaintiffs’ counsel has submitted bills of costs seeking $15,000 for the Bouttier case and $10,000 for the Ratigan case. He has indicated that he was careful to docket separately for each of the two cases. The amounts he seeks are reasonable and should not take the Defendant by surprise. They therefore satisfy the dual criteria in Rules 57.01(1)(0.a) and (0.b) that the Plaintiff be adequately compensated for the outlay of legal costs and the Defendant be treated fairly and within its reasonable expectations of payment.

[11] Mr. Bouttier will now have a new judgment for the balance outstanding to him in the amount of $304,079.41.

[12] The Defendant shall pay costs to Ms. Ratigan in the amount of $10,000 and to Mr. Bouttier in the amount of $15,000.

Date: April 19, 2022 Morgan J.