She said she incurred additional time and expense defending the board's allegation that one of her supporters had covertly recorded the ERA's proceedings.
"As it turned out Ms Catanuto had no involvement in or knowledge of the covert recording, which the authority now understands was done by the wife of one of the current board members," Ms Larmer said in her ruling.
She rejected the board's claims that its costs were significantly increased due to Ms Catanuto's choice to pursue reinstatement as a remedy, initially as an urgent interim reinstatement and then as a permanent remedy. Ms Larmer said it wasn't surprising Ms Catanuto would respond as she did, given the unsatisfactory process she was subjected to and the lack of information she encountered during the process and at the time of her dismissal.
While the board said it was not a profit-making organisation and that a substantial costs award would cause it and its beneficiaries' hardship, Ms Larmer said no evidence was produced to support those submissions.
"If what the board says is true about its financial situation, I would have expected it to have taken a realistic view of the merits of it successfully defending Ms Catanuto's claims," she said.
