In a column last summer titled “Cautionary tale shows risks of both sides ‘going for the jugular’ in court,” we cautioned against the dangers of making exaggerated allegations, such as human rights violations, before the court.

That warning just gained renewed significance.

In Chin vs. Beauty Express Canada Inc., the court awarded a dismissed employee $15,701.71 after a two-day trial for wrongful dismissal. The catch? The court refused to grant any legal costs to the successful employee, placing her in the unenviable position of being on the hook for the full amount of her lawyer’s fees.

One would correctly imagine that a typical lawyer’s fees for time spent preparing and litigating a two-day trial at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, including all of the preliminary steps, vastly outweighs $15,701.71.

The employee, aged 69, had worked as a part-time esthetician for 20 years, earning between approximately $13,000 and $26,000. When she was let go, she filed a claim seeking almost $200,000. This included claims for aggravated and punitive damages, along with allegations of human rights violations. The full amount of the nearly $200,000 claim was vigorously pursued at trial.

The trial verdict concluded that the employee was wrongfully dismissed — but rejected her claims for aggravated damages, punitive damages, and human rights violations. And, even if her allegations had been upheld, how much would those claims have been actually worth?

The employer had dismissed 49 employees, including the woman, as part of a restructuring. She argued at trial that her termination was in reprisal for having complained about a reduction in her work hours. The court concluded there was no reprisal, since 48 other employees were also dismissed.

In dismissing the claim for aggravated damages, the court noted that there was “no shred of external evidence of mental distress,” an element typically required to establish aggravated damages.

The woman further contended that her termination amounted to age discrimination, and thus claimed human rights damages. However, the court determined that no human rights violation had occurred, as the employer had not targeted older employees.

The resulting award, $15,701.71 for wrongful dismissal, did not surpass even half of the Small Claims Court maximum of $35,000.

When litigants bring a case to the Superior Court but are ultimately granted an amount falling within the jurisdiction of small claims, they are presumptively not entitled to recover any of their legal fees from the losing party. Indeed, the court noted disapprovingly that the trial was “an unfortunate waste of the parties’ resources.”

Our court system is structured to provide streamlined procedures appropriate to the monetary value of each case. A realistic evaluation of the employee’s claim should have indicated that the Small Claims Court was the appropriate venue. It also provides more speedy justice and far fewer (and expensive) steps. As Justice Morgan aptly observed, “But for the Plaintiff’s rather large overreach, the entire litigation would have been far more expeditiously and inexpensively pursued in Small Claims Court.”

This case, and my previous article, underscores a recurring lesson: Judges do not take kindly to litigants who overreach and seek damages in excess of the realistic value of their claim.

Litigants involved in employment disputes, while understandably upset at the circumstances, must heed logic when going to court rather than being driven by emotion. As the court in this instance pointed out, the Plaintiff’s pursuit of the extensive damages appeared to be more a product of emotion than reason.

Too many employee-side lawyers, make extravagant human rights and harassment claims has become an unfortunate matter of course to the point that smart employers seldom even take the allegations seriously. When defending against them, I ask for costs whatever the result because the employer should not have to face the calumny of those allegations without their bearing a scintilla of truth. After all, and courts should recognize this, bad faith conduct cuts both ways.

For employees, it is prudent to select a good employment lawyer and seek a realistic evaluation of the strengths and weakness of your claim, and don’t overreach as it could badly backfire as it did in this and the earlier case I discussed. Many employees who have been dismissed may, understandably, wish to punish their former employer through the pursuit of damages. While one may be tempted to instruct their lawyer to seek substantial sums of aggravated, punitive or human rights damages, such a decision could well backfire. And when lawyers instruct their clients to make such claims, clients should hold such lawyers to account.