Background:

• Martynenko, a former employee, was terminated by the defendant on January 17, 2023.
• He initially filed a claim for wrongful dismissal. The defendant counterclaimed for $1,000,000, alleging Martynenko misappropriated confidential information.
• Martynenko amended his Statement of Claim to add $150,000 for breach of the duty of good faith and $500,000 in punitive damages, alleging the counterclaim was meant to intimidate him into dropping his lawsuit.

Decision 1: Motion to Strike (2024 ONSC 3947):

• Defendant’s Motion: The defendant sought to strike out the amended paragraphs seeking punitive damages, arguing they were frivolous and constituted an abuse of process.
• Court’s Decision: The motion was dismissed. The court held that the plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages could proceed, as it was not "plain and obvious" that they were bound to fail. It was noted that there is precedent for awarding punitive damages where an employer’s counterclaim is used as an intimidation tactic.

Decision 2: Costs Award (2024 ONSC 5368):

• Plaintiff’s Request: Martynenko sought substantial indemnity costs due to the alleged unreasonable conduct of the defendant.
• Court’s Decision: The court awarded Martynenko partial indemnity costs of $13,592. The request for substantial indemnity was rejected as the defendant’s conduct did not meet the threshold of "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous."

Final Outcome:

• Martynenko successfully defended against the defendant's motion, allowing his claims for aggravated and punitive damages to remain part of his case.
• He was awarded $13,592 in costs, on a partial indemnity basis, for the successful defense against the motion to strike. The case continues with these damages claims still intact.