In what appears to be a first in Manitoba, a judge awarded the losing party in a civil suit $100,000 in costs because the winning party instigated the litigation, prolonged it and then waived a potential remedy .

Manitoba Court of King’s Bench Justice Chris Martin has asked the City of Winnipeg to pay $100,000 to a heavy equipment operator who failed to sue for lost income after being unfairly banned from working for the city.

In a ruling released Friday, Martin said there were special circumstances behind his decision to award costs to the operator, who was banned from working for the city in 2017 following accusations ” wicked and wrong” of lying, trespassing and attempted theft at work. .

CBC/Radio-Canada is not naming the complainant, who worked for the city for 18 years, to avoid further tarnishing his reputation.

In April, Martin dismissed the worker’s complaint against the city because, during a three-week trial in December, he failed to prove that city officials committed misconduct in the performance of public duties, caused losses by illegal means or breach of their duty of fairness.

Still, Martin said the city was not vindicated by the decision because the machine operator was able to establish that the bans against him were unfair and unreasonable.

“He has proven that he should not have been banned and he has suffered an economic loss,” Martin wrote in his decision.

In April, Martin said the machine operator should be allowed to return to his job if he wants. The judge also said the city “should act honorably and voluntarily lift both bans, especially since most of the city employees involved have left the city.”

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

The city “acted poorly by not keeping its word” and therefore treated the machine operator unfairly, both when the ban was enacted in 2017 and then again after the court ruling, Martin said .

Judge ‘ignores Manitoba precedents’

The judge wrote that he is “unaware of any precedent in Manitoba” for awarding costs against a successful party in a civil suit. 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 called the operator a liar and a thief and then ignored his lawyer’s letters.

Once the machine operator sued the city, “the city proceeded with tunnel vision” and prolonged the lawsuit, claiming the machine operator was dishonest after evidence called into question the basis for the worker’s ban, Martin wrote.

“They argued, in their statements at trial, that (the machine operator) was essentially guilty of the charges made; this is significant, because it was unproven and false,” the judge wrote, saying that the city “doubled down” on its false allegations.

“It wasn’t just that I preferred some evidence over other evidence; there was no basis for that.”

Martin wrote that the city’s decision to reverse its position that it would lift the ban on the machine’s operator was key to the decision to award the operator $100,000.

“There are good reasons and special circumstances that distinguish this particular procedure from the norm,” Martin wrote, adding that the city had engaged in “misconduct deserving of reprimand.”

This is “the last chance for the operator of the machine to obtain a modicum of justice,” Martin added, describing the $100,000 reward as “a slight alleviation of the sting and consequences that any This affair, from start to finish, has been inflicting.