Manitoba court awards losing party in lawsuit $100K in costs after City of Winnipeg 'acted shabbily'

In what appears to be a Manitoba first, a judge has awarded the losing party in a civil lawsuit $100,000 in costs because the successful party provoked the litigation, prolonged it and then reneged on a potential remedy.

Manitoba Court of King's Bench Justice Chris Martin has told the City of Winnipeg to pay $100,000 to a heavy machine operator who failed in his bid to sue for loss of income after being unjustly banned from working for the city.

In a decision issued on Friday, Martin said there are special circumstances behind his decision to award costs to the operator, who was banned from working for the city in 2017 following "nasty and wrong" accusations of lying, trespassing and attempted theft on the job.

CBC is not naming the plaintiff, who had worked for the city for 18 years, in order to prevent any further damage to his reputation.

In April, Martin dismissed the worker's claim against the city because during a three-week trial in December, he did not prove city officials engaged in misfeasance in public office, caused loss by unlawful means, or breached a duty to be fair.

Nonetheless, Martin said the city was not vindicated by this decision, as the machine operator was able to establish the bans against him were unjust and unreasonable.

"He proved he should not have been banned and he suffered an economic loss," Martin wrote in his decision.

In April, Martin said the machine operator should be allowed to have his job back, if he so chooses. The judge also said the city "should act honourably and voluntarily lift both bans, particularly as most of the city employees involved have moved on."

Following that judgment, the city reneged on its position it would lift the ban against the worker if the court found it unreasonable, Martin wrote.

The city "acted shabbily by breaking their word" and thus treated the machine operator unfairly both when the ban was enacted in 2017 and then again after the court judgment, Martin said.

The judge wrote he is "unaware of Manitoba precedents" for awarding costs against a successful party in a civil lawsuit. Martin cited a number of reasons for what he described as an exceptional case.

He wrote that the city gave the machine operator no choice but to sue in order to protect his reputation, since city officials labelled the operator a liar and a thief and then ignored letters from his lawyer.

Once the machine operator took the city to court, "the city proceeded with tunnel vision" and prolonged the court case, maintaining the machine operator was dishonest after evidence called into question the basis for banning the worker, Martin wrote.

"They maintained, through submissions at trial, that [the machine operator] was essentially guilty as charged; this is significant, as it was unproven and untrue," the judge wrote, stating the city "doubled down" on its false claims.