Filice v. Complex Services Inc.

Filice v. Complex Services Inc.

Respondent was entitled to trial costs because he succeeded on the constructive dismissal claim; Rule 76.13 did not bar costs recovery because the court exercised its discretion to excuse failure to proceed under the simplified procedure given unusual factual circumstances, lack of objection by appellant and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 ONCA 763
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Antonio Filice; Defendant (appellant): Complex Services Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Employment / Appeal (costs Endorsement Following Allowance of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; respondent awarded trial costs in reduced amount.
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Punitive Damages, Simplified Procedure, Costs, Frustration of Contract
Source Language
english
Civil Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Constructive Dismissal Punitive Damages Simplified Procedure Costs Frustration of Contract

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antonio Filice

Plaintiff (respondent)

Complex Services Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Employment / Appeal (costs Endorsement Following Allowance of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent is entitled to trial costs after appeal allowed
  2. 2 Whether Rule 76.13 bars recovery of costs where claim fell within the simplified procedure but was not pursued under it
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum of trial costs given partial success and complexity

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent was entitled to trial costs because he succeeded on the constructive dismissal claim; Rule 76.13 did not bar costs recovery because the court exercised its discretion to excuse failure to proceed under the simplified procedure given unusual factual circumstances, lack of objection by appellant and uncertainty whether proceeding under the simplified procedure would have been practical; however costs were reduced from the trial judge's $82,600 to $40,000 to reflect partial success and the excessive length and complexity attributable to issues beyond the constructive dismissal claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; respondent awarded trial costs in reduced amount.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; costs of the appeal previously awarded to the respondent in the amount of 10000 CAD.
  • Respondent awarded trial costs in the amount of 40000 CAD inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the appellant.