Stevens v. Globe and Mail et al., (1996) 90 O.A.C. 361 (CA)

• Judge: Morden, A.C.J.O., Catzman and Weiler, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 01, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 90 O.A.C. 361 (CA)

Stevens v. Globe & Mail (1996), 90 O.A.C. 361 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Geoffrey Stevens (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Globe and Mail, a division of Canadian Newspapers Company Limited and A. Roy Megarry (defendants/appellants)

(No. C14513)

Indexed As: Stevens v. Globe and Mail et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Morden, A.C.J.O., Catzman and Weiler, JJ.A.

May 8, 1996.

Summary:

The Globe and Mail terminated Stevens' employment after he had worked with the newspaper for approximately 24 years. Stevens sued both the newspaper and its publisher, alleging wrongful dismissal, deceit, fraudulent or negligent misrepresen­tation and intentional infliction of harm. He sought general, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages.

The Ontario Court (General Division) awarded Stevens general damages for dis­missal against the newspaper, calculated on the basis of a reasonable notice period of 21 months. Thereafter, the newspaper the pub­lisher made submissions on three issues: the deduction of severance pay under the Em­ployment Standards Act received by Stevens from the wrongful dismissal damages; pre­judgment interest on the general damage award; and costs.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in written supplementary reasons for judgment, refused to order that severance pay received under the Act be deduction; granted pre­judgment interest at 13% per annum on the general damage award calculated from the date of dismissal; and awarded party and party costs against the newspaper. The action against the publisher was dismissed without costs. The newspaper appealed the court's decision respecting the deduction of sever­ance pay and prejudgment interest. The newspaper and the publisher appealed the issue of costs.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered that severance pay received by Stevens under the Employment Standards Act should be deducted from the wrongful dismissal dam­ages. The court dismissed the other appeals.

Interest - Topic 3502

Statutory interest - On judgments - Com­mencement of - [See Interest - Topic 5009 ].

Interest - Topic 5009

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - Prejudgment interest - Calculation of - The Globe and Mail terminated Stevens after approximately 24 years' employment - He sued both the newspaper and its publisher, alleging, inter alia, wrongful dismissal - His claim was allowed against the newspaper and damages were calcu­lated based on a 21 month reasonable notice period - The court further granted prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 13% per annum on the award from the date of dismissal - The calculation was done using the "lump sum" approach rather than the "instalment" approach - The newspaper appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal declined to vary the rate of interest awarded or the approach used, however, did vary the date from which the prejudgment interest was calculated - Particularly, the court stated that by virtue of the Courts of Justice Act, s. 148(1), the starting date for prejudgment interest was the date on which notice in writing of the claim was given - See paragraphs 29 to 34.

Interest - Topic 5104

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - Breach of contract - Employment con­tracts - [See Interest - Topic 5009 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7711

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Deduction for sever­ance pay - The Globe and Mail ter­minated Stevens after approximately 24 years' employment - He sued both the newspaper and its publisher, alleging, inter alia, wrongful dismissal - His claim was allowed against the newspaper and dam­ages were calculated based on a 21 month reasonable notice period - The court declined to deduct from the award sever­ance pay Stevens received under the Em­ployment Standards Act, s. 58 - On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed s. 58 and the relevant case law and held that "amounts awarded as sever­ance payments under s. 58 of the Act should be deducted from awards of dam­ages for wrongful dismissal" - See para­graphs 6 to 28.

Practice - Topic 6931

Costs - Discretion of court - The Globe and Mail terminated Stevens after approxi­mately 24 years' employment - He sued both the newspaper and its publisher, alleging, inter alia, wrongful dismissal - His claim was allowed against the news­paper and damages were calculated based on a 21 month reasonable notice period - The court further awarded Stevens party and party costs against the newspaper - The action against the publisher was dis­missed without costs - The newspaper and the publisher appealed the issue of costs - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that costs were at the discretion of the court - In this case it was clear from the trial judge's reasons that he considered all of the relevant factors that properly bore on the disposition of costs and that there was no error in principle - The court dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 35 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

Stevens v. Globe and Mail (1992), 7 O.R.(3d) 520; 39 C.C.E.L. 1, additional reasons 45 C.C.E.L. 50 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

Carter v. Bell & Sons (Can.) Ltd., [1936] O.R. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

McKay v. Camco Inc. (1986), 11 O.A.C. 356; 53 O.R.(2d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Wood v. Indal Technologies Inc. (1990), 73 O.R.(2d) 97 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Brown v. Black Clawson-Kennedy Ltd. (1989), 29 C.C.E.L. 92 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 22, 23].

Mattocks v. Smith & Stone (1982) Inc. (1990), 34 C.C.E.L. 273 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 22, 23, 24].

Williams v. Motorola Ltd., [1996] O.J. No. 120 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 22, 23].

Leduc v. Canadian Erectors Ltd., [1996] O.J. No. 897 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 22, 23].

Lefebvre v. HOJ Industries Ltd.; Mach­tinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986; 136 N.R. 40; 53 O.A.C. 200; 91 D.L.R.(4th) 491, refd to. [para. 22].

Germond v. Avco Financial Services Canada Ltd., [1991] O.J. No. 1455 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Plitt v. P.P.G. Canada Inc. (1992), 92 C.L.L.C. 14,041 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Lefebvre v. Beaver Road Builders Ltd. (1993), 49 C.C.E.L. 207 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Kolcun v. Carsten Electronics Ltd., [1993] O.J. No. 2371 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Kwasnycia v. Goldcorp Inc., [1995] O.J. No. 1301 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Morris v. Rockwell International of Canada Ltd. (1993), 47 C.C.E.L. 183 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Waters v. MTI Canada Ltd., [1996] O.J. No. 731 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Mills-Hughes et al. v. Raynor et al. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 248; 63 O.R.(2d) 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Chang v. Simplex Textiles Ltd. (1985), 7 O.A.C. 137; 6 C.C.E.L. 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 128(1) [para. 31].

Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-14, sect. 1, sect. 4, sect. 6(1), sect. 57(1), sect. 57(13), sect. 57(14), sect. 58(1), sect. 58(2), sect. 58(4) [schedule A]; sect. 58(7) [para. 15, schedule A].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Orkin, Mark M., The Law of Costs (2nd Ed.), para. 202.1 [para. 37].

Counsel:

Alan Lenczner, Q.C., and Risa Kirshblum, for the appellants;

Jane C. Demaray, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 1, 1996, before Morden, A.C.J.O., Catzman and Weiler, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On May 8, 1996, Catzman, J.A., released the following decision for the Court of Appeal.