3 total
Successful defendant awarded $143,978 in partial indemnity costs; elevated costs denied as settlement offer was nominal.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, the successful defendant sought costs of $210,000, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of its $25,000 offer to settle.
The plaintiff argued for no costs due to impecuniosity or a reduced amount due to divided success and the reasonableness of her claim.
The court found insufficient evidence of impecuniosity and held that the defendant's offer, being only slightly above nuisance value, did not warrant elevated costs under Rule 49.10(2).
The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $143,978.67, noting the need to balance the successful party's entitlement with access to justice concerns.
Wrongful dismissal claim dismissed as executive director's financial misconduct and poor judgment justified termination for cause.
The plaintiff, a long-term executive director of a not-for-profit chamber of commerce, sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.
The employer alleged the plaintiff breached her fiduciary duties through various financial irregularities, including altering a banking document, taking unauthorized vacation pay, and allowing an unauthorized pay raise to continue.
The court found that the plaintiff was a fiduciary and that her cumulative misconduct and poor judgment irredeemably fractured the employer's trust.
The court concluded the employer had just cause for termination and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for notice, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.
Evidentiary objection dismissed; recall of witness, not exclusion of evidence, is the appropriate remedy for Browne and Dunn breaches.
During a wrongful dismissal trial, the plaintiff objected to the defendant adducing evidence of financial irregularities, arguing the defendant breached the rule in Browne and Dunn by failing to confront her with this evidence during cross-examination.
The court dismissed the objection, finding the defendant had generally met its obligations as the plaintiff was well aware of the allegations from pleadings and discovery.
The court held that the appropriate remedy for any specific transactions not put to the plaintiff would be to recall her to testify, rather than excluding the defendant's evidence.
