Thomas McRae

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking damages for an unpaid 2016 fiscal bonus, bad faith, and punitive damages following the termination of his employment.

The plaintiff argued the bonus plan was objective and non-discretionary, while the defendant employer maintained it was discretionary and subject to board approval.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that material facts were in dispute regarding the nature of the bonus plan, alleged performance issues, and bad faith.

The court concluded that a fair and just determination required a full evidentiary record with viva voce evidence and credibility assessments at trial.

The plaintiff, an adult ESL student, brought an action for defamation and malicious prosecution against her former teacher.

She alleged that the teacher defamed her by falsely claiming she was stalking and harassing him, and maliciously prosecuted her by seeking two peace bonds.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff's evidence not credible and accepting the defendant's evidence that the plaintiff had engaged in a prolonged pattern of stalking and harassment.

The court held that the defendant's statements were substantially true and protected by qualified privilege, and that he had reasonable and probable cause to seek the peace bonds without malice.

The Monitor in the CCAA proceedings of Nortel Networks Corporation brought a motion to pass its accounts and those of its legal counsel for the period from January 2009 to May 2016.

The fees sought totaled over $250 million CAD and USD combined.

The court applied the Belyea factors to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the fees.

Despite the unprecedented size of the fees, the court found them justified given the massive scale, complexity, and duration of the cross-border insolvency, the extraordinary powers granted to the Monitor, and the highly successful results achieved for the Canadian estate.

The accounts were approved in full.

Following an unsuccessful motion by the defendant seeking to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the basis of res judicata, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The motion involved complex legal issues including the doctrine of res judicata, conflict of laws, and analysis of a United States declaratory judgment forming the basis of the defendant’s argument.

The plaintiff sought substantial partial indemnity costs reflecting extensive research, including evidence from U.S. counsel regarding American law.

The court found the claimed hours excessive for a one‑day motion but accepted that the issues were complex and important.

The court fixed reasonable partial indemnity costs and allowed the claimed disbursements.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss or stay an Ontario action on the basis of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process, relying on a Minnesota default declaratory judgment obtained after the plaintiff declined to attorn to the jurisdiction of the U.S. court.

The Ontario court found that the Minnesota judgment did not determine the dispute on the merits and that the defendant failed to disclose the pending Ontario proceedings when seeking default judgment.

Applying the principles governing recognition of foreign judgments, the court held there was no real and substantial connection between the dispute and Minnesota sufficient under Canadian conflict of laws rules.

The court further concluded that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply, and even if they did, discretion should be exercised to refuse their application to avoid injustice and the appearance of forum shopping.