Aisling Flarity

An appeal concerning the enforceability of a termination clause in an employment contract.

The employer appealed a summary judgment decision finding the termination clause void and unenforceable.

The clause contained a "four-week benefits" provision that conflicted with the Employment Standards Act minimum notice requirements for long-term employees.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding the clause void both because it contravened the ESA at the outset and because it contained genuine ambiguity regarding the application of statutory minimums.

The Plaintiff sought damages for wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions.

Both parties brought motions for summary judgment.

The Defendants sought dismissal of the action or alternative judgment for a small amount.

The Plaintiff brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on wrongful dismissal damages.

The court found the termination provision in the Plaintiff's employment contract void and unenforceable due to potential non-compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, entitling the Plaintiff to common law reasonable notice, which was fixed at five months.

The Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the commission claim and enforceability of the "Entire Agreement Clause" was dismissed, as genuine issues requiring a trial remained due to insufficient evidence regarding the parties' intentions and the unconscionability of the clause.

Friday Harbour and its predecessors operated a marina on Lake Simcoe, which involved dredging a channel that submerged part of a right of way (Block C) and using the remaining 'Marina strip' exclusively since the 1960s.

The defendant, owner of Block C, argued the right of way was abandoned and counterclaimed for trespass.

The court found that Friday Harbour acquired ownership of the Marina strip by adverse possession, as its use was open, notorious, exclusive, and inconsistent with the titled owner's intended use.

However, the court also found that Friday Harbour had abandoned its right of way over the 'Western strip' of Block C, as it had relied on the impassability of the barrier between the strips to establish its adverse possession claim.