Wickens v. Chambers Insurance
Costs Ruling in Wrongful Dismissal: Rule 49.10(2) Interpretation
Summary
This is a costs ruling in a wrongful dismissal action where the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10(2) after making an offer to settle. The court interpreted Rule 49.10(2) to exclude cases where no judgment was obtained, denied elevated costs due to lack of misconduct, and allocated costs proportionally to the wrongful dismissal issue, fixing the amount at $18,000.00.
Outcome
Costs fixed at $18,000.00
Award
$18,000.00 in costs
Key Factors
- costs
- Rule 49.10(2)
- offer to settle
- substantial indemnity costs
- wrongful dismissal
Related Cases
Contardi v. Grand Cheese
2026 ONSC 4045 (CanLII) · 2026-07-13Wrongful Dismissal: Senior Executive Awarded 27 Months Notice
This is a default judgment ruling in a wrongful dismissal case involving a senior executive with lengthy service who was constructively dismissed without just cause. The court established liability based on deemed admissions and applied the Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc. principle regarding benefits continuity. The plaintiff was awarded twenty-seven months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice with benefits, along with partial indemnity costs and interest.
Brian Allan Cutajar v. Automobile Specialties Inc. et al
2026 ONSC 3956 (CanLII) · 2026-07-07Constructive Dismissal: Common Employer Liability & Bad Faith Damages
This is a default judgment case involving wrongful and constructive dismissal claims against an employer and related entities. The court found the defendants liable under the common employer doctrine and awarded damages for constructive dismissal, including unpaid wages, eight weeks of termination pay, and additional damages for bad faith conduct.
Silva v. Royal Bank of Canada
2026 ONSC 3841 (CanLII) · 2026-06-30Silva v RBC: 16 Months Notice for Wrongful Dismissal
This wrongful dismissal case involved a financial planner terminated for alleged cause, which the court set aside after finding the employer's investigation inadequate and biased. The court awarded sixteen months' reasonable notice and damages for aggravated mental distress and bad faith in the manner of dismissal, while rejecting the employer's mitigation defence.
Wilsher v. Olympic Wholesale
2026 ONSC 3620 (CanLII) · 2026-06-26Wrongful Dismissal: 17-Year Supervisor Awarded 19 Months Notice
This wrongful dismissal case addressed whether a supervisor's long-standing practice of 'topping up' hours constituted just cause for termination under the ESA. The court found just cause was not established and determined reasonable notice based on the Bardal factors for a 55-year-old employee with 17 years of service. The court awarded 19 months' pay in lieu of notice, extending the base period by 14 months due to bad faith in the manner of dismissal.
McCarthy v. Bison Transport Inc.
2026 ONSC 3729 (CanLII) · 2026-06-25McCarthy v. Bison Transport: Drug Policy Termination
This wrongful dismissal case involved an employee terminated for cause following a second positive drug test, raising issues regarding safety-sensitive policies, human rights accommodation, and the justification of dismissal. The court found the termination justified due to consistent policy enforcement and lack of disability, dismissing the wrongful dismissal claim. However, the court assessed hypothetical damages, awarding four months' notice if the dismissal had been wrongful, and dismissed overtime claims as barred by limitation periods or unsupported by evidence.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Ontario Severance is an educational tool. If you are facing a serious employment law matter, consult with a qualified employment lawyer in Ontario.