Stefan Rosenbaum

The court rendered a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the defendant employer's motion to strike paragraphs seeking punitive damages from the plaintiff employee's Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $13,592, payable within 15 days.

The court rejected the plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that counsel communications about the motion's merits did not constitute reprehensible conduct warranting such an award.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs from the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim, which sought punitive damages based on the defendant's counterclaim for misappropriation of confidential information being a bullying tactic.

The defendant argued these pleadings disclosed no cause of action and were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rules 21.01 and 25.11.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claim for punitive/exemplary damages would fail.

The judge emphasized that the unique principles of employment relationships, including the inherent power imbalance, allow for such claims, and that the issue should be decided at trial on a full evidentiary record, not at the pleadings stage.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative.

The action concerned an accident where the plaintiff's vehicle allegedly dropped into a hole in the road.

The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06 and proportionality principles under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master ruled on each contested question, ordering some to be answered (e.g., reason for representative selection, statutory duty to maintain streets, specific practice manuals, cause of hole) and refusing others (e.g., overly broad requests for manuals, questions about training or budgets not pleaded).

Some undertakings were confirmed as answered, and others were ordered to be completed by consent.

The applicants, unit owners in a condominium, challenged the corporation's decision to enter into a new bulk services agreement for television and internet.

They argued the corporation lacked jurisdiction to charge the costs as common expenses without an opt-out, failed to comply with notice and approval requirements under s. 97 of the Condominium Act, and acted oppressively by ignoring a requisition for an owners' meeting.

The court dismissed the application, finding the corporation had jurisdiction under its declaration and by-laws, the incremental cost of the new internet service did not trigger the s. 97 thresholds, and the applicants failed to prove oppressive conduct.