"Close Only Counts in Horseshoes." ONSC finds Reasonableness of Plaintiff’s Position a Relevant Factor in Awarding Costs

Litigation is an expensive business. It is not for the risk-averse or the faint of heart. There are winners and there are losers. And it is a well-established convention in our civil justice system that losers pay the winners a significant portion of their costs.

Wrongful dismissal cases are especially perilous; especially where the defendant employer alleges cause for dismissal.

So what happens when the employee loses? Is the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s position a relevant factor in awarding costs of the case?

In Goruk v. Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce,2021 ONSC 6290 (CanLII) Justice Cary Boswell held that it is.

Discretion to Depart from R.49 Costs Presumption Not Unfettered: ONCA

Does a trial judge have absolute, unfettered discretion in awarding the costs of a proceeding? To what extent does the fact that one of the parties made an offer to settle play a role in fettering the trial judge’s discretion?

In Barresi v. Jones Lang Lasalle Real Estate Services Inc., 2019 ONCA 884, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (Feldman, Fairburn and Jamal JJ.A.) held that, “The discretion to depart from the presumption as to costs in r. 49.10(1) is not unfettered and must be exercised in accordance with the purpose of the rule.” The case thus stands as an important reminder of the import of that rule.

Div Court Finds No Frustration of Contract after 29-Month Disability Leave; Upholds Awards of Human Rights Damages and “Punitive” Costs

(c) istock/Hailshadow

Some decisions are just textbooks on employment law. They are ‘must read’ decisions for anyone looking to practice in this area. Boucher v Black & McDonald Ltd., 2016 ONSC 7220 is a key example of how to approach the following subjects: long-term absence; frustration of contract; human rights damages; and off-set of benefits for the receipt of long-term disability benefits.

The facts of the case are easy to understand and the statement of law is first-principles stuff. For anyone wondering what to do with an employee who has been absent from employment for a considerable period of time, here is a lesson in what not to do.

Judge Orders Costs of Injunction against Solicitation “In the Cause”

The dirty secret of contract law is that a contract is only as good as a party’s ability to enforce it. Typically, this blog focuses on the legal ability of an employer to enforce certain elements of an employment contract; whether that element be termination provisions, about which I write frequently, or restrictive covenants, such as non-solicitation or non-competition agreements, about which I write much less frequently.

Putting legal considerations aside for a moment, there are also practical considerations in attempting to enforce contractual provisions, not the least of which is the element of cost.

In his reasons for decision in Accreditation Canada International v Guerra, 2016 ONSC 6184, the Honourable Justice Patrick Smith of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting at Ottawa, highlights one of the main practical impediments to an employer attempting to enforce restrictive covenants: the cost.

Ontario Small Claims Court Judge Awards $8,000 in Costs Against Unsuccessful Wrongful Dismissal Claimant

One of the most commonly held beliefs about the civil justice system is that the losing party has to pay the winning party’s legal fees. While that belief is not entirely correct, it is not entirely wrong either.

Civil courts in Ontario have the right to award “costs” following a “proceeding.” Without wading too far into the semantics, “costs” is not the same thing as the amount that one has paid his or her lawyer, and “a proceeding” may be a trial, but it may also be something else.

The issue of costs in the Ontario Small Claims Court is both more simple and more complex. What makes matters easier is that the law prescribes that the basic amount of costs to which a successful party will be entitled following a trial is 15% of the amount claimed, plus actual disbursements. With a jurisdictional limit of $25,000, that means that if one sues for $25,000, then costs may typically be in the range of $3,750, i.e. 15% of the amount claimed.

Where things get complicated is that the law also says that judges have discretion to award more or less money for costs. The law also allows the judge to award costs to the losing party.

Decisions on costs from the Ontario Small Claims Court are rare. Judges rarely issue written reasons for the costs award, and even when judges do write out their reasons they are infrequently reported.

In 2015, I was involved in a Small Claims matter where the plaintiff alleged that she was wrongfully dismissed. I acted for the defendants in that case. On January 1, 2016, the Honourable Deputy Judge Lyon Gilbert dismissed the plaintiff’s case for reasons reported as Barton v Bowerman, 2016 CanLII 30100 (ON SCSM). Following the trial the judge invited the parties to make submissions on the amount of costs that should be awarded.

Following the presentation of written submissions, Deputy Judge Gilbert awarded the defendants, for whom I acted, $8,000.00 in costs. The court’s reasons can be found by clicking the following link: Costs Decision in Barton v Bowerman. Ottawa Small Claims Court. Court File No. 14-SC-130470. January 18, 2016.

Former Employee's Wrongful Dismissal Case against US Embassy Continues

Sandra McDonald’s legal saga against the Embassy of the United States at Ottawa is a long and interesting story. On July 17, 2012, Ms. McDonald, a former employee of the embassy, obtained default judgment in the amount of approximately $250,000.00 against her ex-employer after it failed to defend her wrongful dismissal case.

The judgment received a fair amount of media attention at the time. Although, even then, at least one Ottawa employment lawyer was sceptical; telling the Toronto Star , “Good luck to her. The U.S. Treasury is already in debt to the tune of $13 trillion.”

Less well publicized is what has happened since. As expected, Ms. McDonald has not seen her money. However, rather than simply ignore the judgment, the US Embassy has, in fact, responded to the case.

Costs and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Should the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) have the legal ability to award legal costs? Some people think so, including the Member of Provincial Parliament for Lanark--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, the Hon. Randy Hillier.

On December 4, 2013, Bill 147 Human Rights Code Amendment Act (Awarding of Costs), 2013 passed first reading in the Ontario legislature. If passed, the amendment would grant the HRTO the discretionary ability to award legal costs of the proceeding.

The High Price of Free Employment Law Advice

A frequent question asked of this Ottawa employment lawyer is "how much does it cost to retain an employment lawyer?" While the true answer is "it depends," often an equally true answer is "a lot less than not retaining one."

Demonstrating that sometimes the adage 'you get what you pay for' is true is the story in the Toronto Star of two employees suing the Ontario Ministry of Labour ('the Labour Board') after receiving some free employment information about their rights following termination.

Costs of Hiring an Employment Lawyer

How much is hiring a wrongful dismissal lawyer going to cost me? When someone finds him or herself suddenly unemployed questions about the costs of services get serious. Legal services have long had a reputation of being expensive, and there may be a further perception that their cost may put them out of reach to some people. I wish to dispel that myth.

No Costs for You!

One consequence of the increase to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Small Claims Court, from $10,000 to $25,000, is that some litigants – especially those commencing wrongful dismissal actions – are now being told that they are in the ‘wrong place, at the wrong time.’

In a decision released March 16, 2012, Shakur v. Mitchell Plastics, 2012 ONSC 1780, (the facts of which I earlier canvassed in my post titled "No finding of just cause notwithstanding workplace assault") the Honourable Justice David A. Broad held that a plaintiff who won $12,514.00 in a Superior Court action should be denied his costs because he received an amount within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, notwithstanding the fact that when he commenced his case the limit of the Small Claims Court was only $10,000.