| |
|
|  |
November 17, 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
Damages for Mental Distress in Contract Claims In Turczinski v. Dupont Heating & Air Conditioning Limited, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to consider whether damages could be awarded for mental distress in a contract case involving the installation of a heating system in a the plaintiff's house. The Court followed Wallace v. United Grain Growers, holding that such damages could only be awarded where "peace of mind is the very matter contracted for".
The Court concluded that the installation of a heating system was not such a contract and would not entitle the plaintiff to claim for mental distress.
11:05:56 PM 
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Reasonable Working Notice Could Not be Changed In Taylor v. Dyer Brown the Ontario Court of Appeal considered a wrongful dismissal claim. The plaintiff, a law clerk, had been given 18 months working notice. The trial judge held that was reasonable. Four days after receiving notice, the lawyer the clerk worked for passed away. The plaintiff was later terminated with six months pay in lieu of notice.
The Court concluded that the original working notice was reasonable and that the employer could not later unilaterally amend the notice.
10:14:39 PM
| |
|
|
|
|
|
270 Hours Preparation Time for a Motion Not Reasonable The Court of Appeal had the opportunity to consider the cost grid in Moon v. Sher. The Court adopted the reasoning:
The amount at which costs are to be fixed is not simply an arithmetic function dependent on the number of hours worked and the hourly rates employed but, rather, the party paying the costs should be subjected to an order which is fair and predictable. In other words, the party required to pay costs must not be faced with an award that does not reasonably reflect the amount of time and effort that was warranted by the proceedings….
In considering the costs award in issue, the Court commented:
For counsel to spend almost 270 hours, or nearly seven full weeks, on this motion, and for his law clerk and articling student to spend almost the same amount of time, must surely exceed the losing party’s reasonable expectations. This expenditure of time, in my view, bears no relationship to the amount of time that reasonably would have been contemplated by the parties, or would reasonably be required to deal with all aspects of the motion. It could not have been the reasonable expectation of Moon that if he were to be the losing party that he would be liable in costs of $141,000 to the GLOI and the Piersons.
9:58:44 PM
| |
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Michael Girard.
|
|
|
|
|
Shoot the Stars
| November 2004 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
| 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
| 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
| 28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
| Oct Dec |
Canadian Courts
Courts of Appeal
Firms
Blawgs
|
|
