Costs and pre-judgment interest on equity compensation also hotly disputed
An Ontario court has ordered an employer to pay for stock options and RSUs that would have vested during a wrongful dismissal notice period.
Kevin Liggett was dismissed from his role at Veeva software Systems Inc. and Veeva Systems Inc. and took the matter to court. In a summary judgment decision rendered on October 7, 2025, Justice Des Rosiers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that Liggett was entitled to a six-month notice period. The court also ruled he was entitled to compensation for Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and stock options that would have vested during that notice period.
The parties agreed on most of the amounts owed after the judgment. What they could not agree on was costs and how to calculate the pre-judgment interest on the equity compensation.
Employer pushes back on costs
Liggett claimed $58,110.13 in costs on a partial indemnity basis. The defendants said $45,000 was more reasonable.
Justice Des Rosiers reviewed both parties' bills of costs and weighed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted the plaintiff was "mostly successful on his claim although he did not achieve all that he claimed in his action." It also noted that "arguments had to be marshalled on many issues: validity of the termination clause, notice period, and the contractual availability of RSUs/stock options during the notice period."
The issues mattered to both sides. The court pointed out that in a wrongful dismissal claim, the plaintiff had "a substantial interest in the outcome of a claim instituted at a time when he was without income and forced to draw on his savings to pay legal fees." It was also important to the defendants, who argued the validity of the termination clause applicable to other employees.
In the end, the court found the full amount of costs claimed "was within their reasonable expectations."
Court sticks with statutory interest rate
The second disagreement was over pre-judgment interest on the RSUs and stock options. Liggett wanted the court to use the TD average quarterly rate, which would have brought the interest to $20,285.55. The defendants calculated $14,705.80 using the presumptive rate under section 128(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.
Justice Des Rosiers declined to budge from the statutory rate. Citing the Ontario Court of Appeal's guidance in Aubin v. Synagogue and Jewish Community Centre of Ottawa (Soloway Jewish Community Centre), 2024 ONCA 615, the court noted the CJA "sets up a rebuttable presumption that should only be deviated from where the party seeking a higher or lower rate demonstrates that there are unusual or special circumstances sufficient to justify such a departure."
The court found Liggett had "not discharged his burden of demonstrating" that a higher rate was warranted. He had "not demonstrated that his investment strategy would have yielded higher returns" — and the court did not have such evidence in front of it to justify a departure.
There was also a practical consideration. The difference between the two calculations was approximately $6,000, and the court observed that "inviting the parties to present evidence of their respective rates of return on investment during the relevant period would cost significantly more than such an amount."
The court awarded costs of $58,110.13 and pre-judgment interest for the RSUs/stock options of $14,705.80.
See Kevin Liggett v. Veeva Software Systems Inc., 2026 ONSC 1210.
