Susan Crawford

After the dismissal of an employee’s wrongful dismissal action seeking unpaid salary and bonus compensation, the defendant sought elevated costs relying on a rejected pre-trial settlement offer.

The court considered Rules 49.13 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the appellate guidance restricting elevated costs awards against unsuccessful plaintiffs absent reprehensible conduct.

The court held that although the defendant had made a settlement offer, the plaintiff’s claim was not frivolous and the litigation had been conducted efficiently.

As there was no egregious conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, the court declined to award elevated costs.

Costs were fixed at $35,000 payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, sued his former employer for an unpaid bonus after being dismissed without cause.

The employment contract contained a limitation clause stating that bonuses did not accrue and were only payable if the employee was actively employed on the payout date.

The plaintiff argued the clause was contrary to public policy, inconsistently applied, and ambiguous.

The court found that while the bonus was an integral part of compensation and the entire agreement clause did not exclude prior oral representations, the limitation clause itself was unambiguous and enforceable.

The plaintiff had accepted the contract with full knowledge of its terms.

The action was dismissed.