William John Hayter

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages for conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff sought over $124,000, claiming substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle.

The court found the judgment was not as favourable as the offer because the offer included the defendant surrendering his shares, which the court declined to order at trial.

The court also disallowed a $13,740 disbursement for a valuation report related to the unsuccessful share claim.

Costs were fixed at $80,000 payable by the primary defendant, with the co-defendant jointly and severally liable for $35,000.

This action arose from a shareholder dispute following the departure of a senior officer and shareholder, Richard Tisi, and an employee, Ian MacArthur, from The Prim8 Group Inc. Prim8 sued Tisi and MacArthur for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of good faith and loyalty, conversion, inducing breach of contract, conspiracy, and intentional interference with economic relations, alleging wrongful removal of assets and impediment of access to client websites.

Tisi counterclaimed for loan repayment, dividends, financial statements, compensation, and ownership of the Content Management System (CMS).

The court found Tisi liable for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion of Prim8 assets (including the CMS), and inducing MacArthur's breach of employment contract.

Both Tisi and MacArthur were found jointly and severally liable for breach of contract (duty of good faith and loyalty) and unlawful conduct conspiracy related to MacArthur's departure.

Prim8's claims for intentional interference with economic relations and punitive damages were dismissed.

On the counterclaim, Tisi was awarded repayment of $2,500 in loans, but his other claims, including ownership of the CMS and claims against Kirwin and Wright, were dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration board's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a policy grievance regarding probationary faculty workload.

The union argued the board's reasons were inadequate and incomprehensible.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the board failed to engage with the union's arguments or explain its conclusion regarding the collective agreement's exception for policy grievances.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitration award was quashed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted board.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating an employee who was terminated for excessive innocent absenteeism under an attendance management system.

The arbitrator found that the termination violated the Human Rights Code because the absences relied upon included a compensable workplace injury, and the employer failed to show undue hardship in accommodating the employee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the arbitrator's decision and finding no error in the arbitrator's application of human rights principles regarding the duty to accommodate.

The appellant employer appealed the refusal to dismiss a proposed class action seeking recovery of employee benefits allegedly tied to employment insurance premium reductions after collective agreement language was removed.

The Court of Appeal held that the core dispute—whether the employer actually satisfied its undertaking to share the benefit of the premium reduction—was not a question reserved exclusively to the statutory Commission under the governing Act and regulations.

The court further held that an officer's ruling did not create issue estoppel because it was not a determination made within the decision-maker's statutory jurisdiction on the question sought to be litigated.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.