Background: Amye Elizabeth Hartley filed a lawsuit against Adam Durante and his employer, Protrans BC Operations Ltd. and SNC-Lavalin, alleging sexual assault and harassment at a work event in March 2010. The corporate defendants were no longer part of the lawsuit.

Legal Issues/Arguments: The legal issue in "Hartley v. Durante" was whether Amye Elizabeth Hartley's claims of sexual assault and harassment fell under the civil court's jurisdiction or should be resolved through labor arbitration and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT). Additionally, it examined whether Hartley's conduct in litigation warranted special costs for being "reprehensible."

Adam Durante sought special costs, arguing that Hartley misled the court by not disclosing relevant union communications. Hartley opposed, claiming she inadvertently omitted documents and believed her grievance was stagnated, making civil action her only option.

Held: The court found no intentional litigation strategy by Hartley to mislead the court. Justice Sharma noted the complex intersection of workers’ compensation, collective agreement procedures, and civil litigation. The court determined that the late disclosure of emails did not rise to the level of "reprehensible" conduct warranting special costs.

Costs/Damages Awarded: The court did not award special costs to Durante, concluding Hartley’s conduct did not merit rebuke. However, Durante was entitled to standard costs for the successful application to strike Hartley’s claim. The total amount of costs awarded in favor of Durante was not specified.