In Colistro v Tbaytel ( 2019 ONCA 197) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross appeal in the case of a plaintiff who was constructively dismissed when her employer rehired a manager who had sexually harassed her 11 year before.
She was awarded 12 months notice but because she had been on STD and LTD during this same period, her actual damages were only $14,082 . She was also awarded Honda or moral damages of $100,000.
Most plaintiffs’ counsel would have thought that an out come like this was a great win .
Not this plaintiff.
This is what the trial judgement said the Plaintiff was seeking :
- For constructive dismissal from employment $100,000.00, being 18 months’ salary, plus “Wallace” damages of $250,000.00;
2. For the intentional infliction of mental suffering:
i. general damages of $1,000,000.00;
ii. damages for past economic loss of $401,567.64;
iii. damages for future economic loss of $680,666.25;
iv. damages for past loss of housekeeping value of $64,533.70;
v. damages for future loss of housekeeping value of $85,834.23;
vi. aggravated damages of $500,000.00;
vii. punitive damages of $300,000.00; and,
This totals $3,381,000 and change. As she recovered only $114,082, her recovery was about 3.3 % of what she was seeking.
When it came to costs, the OCA set out what the trial judge said .
The trial judge held that, given the damages sought at trial by the appellant and the result achieved after trial, it was obvious that Tbaytel and the City were the substantially successful parties to the litigation, and were therefore entitled to an award of costs. While the appellant’s judgment was less favourable on its face than the financial terms of Tbaytel and the City’s 2015 and 2016 offers to settle, the trial judge chose not to invoke the cost consequences of r. 49.10(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, he chose “to fix costs in an amount which partially indemnified the defendants and which [he found] to be fair and reasonable taking into account all parties’ Bills of Costs, the terms of the 2015 and 2016 offers” and other relevant factors: costs endorsement, para. 36.
The Court of Appeal, in refusing to overrule the trial judge on costs said as follows:
The test for leave to appeal an order as to costs is stringent. Leave to appeal will not be granted save in obvious cases where the party seeking leave convinces the court there are strong grounds upon which the court could find that the judge erred in exercising his discretion: Carroll v. McEwan, 2018 ONCA 902 (CanLII), 34 M.V.R. (7th) 1, at paras. 58-59, application for leave to appeal to S.C.C. pending, 38514 (February 4, 2019).
 The appellant’s submissions suggest that the trial judge determined that she was entitled to her costs, subject to the application of r. 49.10(2). But he did not. He proceeded on the basis that Tbaytel and the City were the substantially successful parties and entitled to costs. Further, the record on appeal does not contain the settlement offers. The trial judge’s endorsement on costs suggests that Tbaytel’s second settlement offer did not include a “no admission of liability” clause. Finally, the trial judge acknowledged that the appellant argued that some of the amount of the settlement would have been taxable, but it is not clear that she quantified or substantiated that assertion and she does not do so before us.
My Comments :
In the past, there has rarely been a downside to reaching for the stars when claiming damages. It costs as much to issue a claim for $4,000,000 as it does for $40,000.
This case may stand for the proposition that there is a real risk to seeking millions when the case is worth only thousands.
I have often thought that there should be a sliding fee scale for issuing a claim based on how much money the claim seeks. This might lessen the effect making million dollar claims in cases worth only thousands.