Sunira Chaudhri

This decision addresses costs and the removal/retention of a writ of seizure and sale following the setting aside of a default judgment.

The plaintiff had obtained a default judgment against the defendant for sexual assault and battery totalling approximately $500,000.

The defendant successfully moved to set aside the default judgment, and the court subsequently addressed the costs of that motion, costs thrown away, and whether the writ should remain filed.

The court fixed costs for both parties at $11,439, offsetting each other, and ordered the writ to be withdrawn and vacated within 30 days.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Adam Boyle in his wrongful dismissal claim against Salesforce.com Canada Corporation.

The court found the termination clause in Boyle’s employment contract unenforceable due to ambiguity and non-compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Boyle was awarded pay in lieu of reasonable notice for eight months (after a three-month reduction for late production of mitigation evidence), pro-rated bonus and RRSP contributions, and benefits.

Claims for aggravated, punitive, and special damages were dismissed.

The defendant, Farm Mutual Reinsurance Plan Inc. (FMRP), brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, 2496300 Ontario Inc. (249), under Rule 56.01(1)(d) due to 249's insufficient assets. 249 did not dispute its lack of assets but argued against the order due to FMRP's unreasonable delay in bringing the motion, FMRP's alleged causation of 249's financial state, and 249's strong chance of success.

The court found FMRP's delay unreasonable, limiting the security to future costs.

The court also found that 249 failed to establish a "good chance of success" in overturning its independent contractor agreement.

The motion was granted in part, ordering 249 to post $50,000 for FMRP's future partial indemnity costs and to pay $15,000 in partial indemnity costs for the motion itself.

The plaintiff, a 58-year-old employee with 34 years of service, sued his employer for constructive dismissal after the employer unilaterally changed his job description, effectively demoting him from a sales and service technician to a project technician on the plant floor.

The court found that the unilateral change breached the employment contract and constituted constructive dismissal.

The court awarded the plaintiff 28 months' reasonable notice due to exceptional circumstances, including the employer's bad faith conduct.

The court also found that the plaintiff reasonably mitigated his damages and awarded $25,000 in aggravated/moral damages for the employer's bad faith in the manner of dismissal.

The plaintiff, Rishi Drepaul, was terminated without cause from his employment as a Processing Improvements Coordinator.

He was provided 9 weeks' notice, which he argued was insufficient.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate notice period, the total remuneration including benefits, and the deductibility of Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

The court found Drepaul was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to 11 months' salary in lieu of notice, with benefits estimated at 10% of his salary, and confirmed that EI benefits are not deductible from wrongful dismissal damages.

RBC Dominion Securities Inc. (RBCDS) sought leave to amend its statement of defence to a counterclaim by Jeffrey Kowal, introducing new grounds for his employment termination.

Kowal did not oppose the amendment but sought compensation for prejudice in costs.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that while RBCDS was successful in obtaining the amendment, Kowal was more successful on the issue of terms, particularly costs.

The court ordered RBCDS to pay Kowal $10,000 in costs as a condition of filing the amended defence, acknowledging the delay by RBCDS and the additional work required by Kowal.

The defendants abandoned a motion to introduce fresh evidence and set aside the trial judgment based on allegations of fraud.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale for the abandoned motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs, noting the seriousness of alleging fraud and subsequently abandoning the motion when the affiant recanted.

The court fixed costs at $20,000 plus disbursements, reflecting a reduction for delays caused by the plaintiff's counsel's health issues.

Following a successful wrongful dismissal trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs relying on settlement offers, including a global offer combining arbitration and the civil action.

The court held that the global offer did not constitute a valid Rule 49 offer because it combined two separate proceedings and did not allow the defendants to evaluate liability separately.

Costs were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $225,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The court also declined to award costs to a discontinued individual defendant after drawing a negative inference from the refusal to disclose whether those costs were indemnified under the Ontario Business Corporations Act or insurance.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for alleged cause from a senior executive position following the sale of his company’s assets to the defendant.

The employer alleged misconduct including abusive language, conflict of interest, and dishonesty regarding the employment of an individual facing fraud charges.

The court found these allegations were exaggerated or unsupported and that the employer had failed to follow progressive discipline contemplated in its employee handbook.

The dismissal was found to be without cause and motivated in part by a dispute over financial adjustments under an asset purchase agreement.

Damages were awarded pursuant to the employment contract together with punitive damages for the employer’s bad faith conduct, and the employer’s counterclaim for fiduciary breaches was dismissed.

A law firm brought a motion to set aside an Order of Assessment issued in favour of its former client, arguing the client requisitioned the order outside the 30‑day period under the Solicitors Act.

The client opposed the motion and cross‑moved for production of time dockets and trust and client ledgers, and alternatively sought a finding of special circumstances under s. 11 of the Solicitors Act.

The court found the client had not received the final invoice until April 2014 and therefore requisitioned the assessment within the statutory period.

The court also held that the absence of time allocations, the potential premium in the bill, and the law firm’s reluctance to disclose dockets constituted special circumstances warranting assessment even though the account had been paid.

The motion to set aside was dismissed, production was ordered, and the matter was directed to proceed to assessment.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they discriminated against three Muslim employees by requiring them to taste pork, failing to accommodate religious holidays, and engaging in reprisals.

The applicants argued the Tribunal made unreasonable findings of fact, erred in its treatment of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, and improperly ignored unsworn willsay statements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's fact-finding was reasonable, the s. 45.1 argument was not raised before the Tribunal, and willsay statements of uncalled witnesses are not evidence.

The plaintiffs, founders of a family-owned welding supply business, sued for wrongful dismissal after the business was sold to the manufacturer whose products they distributed.

The manufacturer argued that a term should be implied that the plaintiffs would retire upon the sale of the business given their senior age.

The court rejected this argument, finding that a term of reasonable notice is implied by law in employment contracts.

The court awarded 18 months' notice based on the plaintiffs' actual compensation, resulting in a joint and several damages award of over $1.1 million against the manufacturer and the business.

The defendant brought a motion seeking a stay of a civil action on the basis that the plaintiff had initiated a parallel complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission arising from substantially the same facts.

While courts sometimes allow simultaneous civil and human rights proceedings, they may also prevent duplicative litigation as an abuse of process.

Before the motion was decided on the merits, the Commission issued a report recommending that the human rights complaint be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the civil action, effectively eliminating the basis for the stay motion.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice to it being brought again if the administrative complaint were revived.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs for defending the motion.