Caitlin Russell

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment dated September 26, 2017.

The appellants challenged the lower court decision, and the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of costs for the motion below.

The parties agreed that the costs determination should be remitted back to the trial judge for decision at a later time, pending clarification of the value of the claims and the effect of any Rule 49 settlement offers.

This appeal concerns the closure of a manufacturing plant and the resulting mass termination of employees.

The central issues relate to the timing of Form 1 notice requirements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the effect of overtime hours on working notice, and the validity of termination notices for employees retained beyond the statutory 13-week temporary work period.

The employer gave employees over one year's notice of termination but failed to file the required Form 1 notice with the director until more than a year later.

The motion judge found the employer's entire notice period invalid.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Form 1 notice requirement arises only at the beginning of the statutory minimum notice period, not when the employer gives notice to employees.

However, the court upheld findings regarding overtime worked in violation of the ESA and the requirement for fresh notice when temporary work exceeds 13 weeks.

The plaintiffs, former employees of CTS, brought a summary judgment motion in a class proceeding arising from a mass termination following a plant closure.

CTS provided employees with approximately 12 months' working notice but did not file the required Form 1 notice with the Director of Employment Standards until the final 8 weeks.

The court held that the ESA requires Form 1 notice on the first day of the notice period provided by the employer, not just the statutory minimum period.

Because CTS failed to provide timely Form 1 notice, the working notice provided prior to the Form 1 filing was deemed void for all purposes, depriving CTS of credit for that period.

The court also found that requiring employees to work excessive overtime during the notice period negated the working notice for those weeks.

However, the court dismissed the claim for bad faith damages.

This decision addresses five separate motions brought by the plaintiffs to reinstate administratively dismissed actions or extend time for filing/serving Statements of Claim, after 14 years of litigation with minimal progress.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the plaintiffs had abused the process by repeatedly attempting to re-litigate issues already decided, misusing court procedures for investigative purposes rather than advancing claims, consistently ignoring court orders and timetables, and failing to properly manage their claims and expert evidence.

The court relied on its inherent jurisdiction to manage its process, concluding that the delay was inordinate and inexplicable, and that "enough is enough."

This application and cross-application sought to determine the meaning of a clause in a lay-person drafted "Commercial House Lease Agreement" concerning a tenant's "5 years priority to rent the property." The Applicant, Merly Maria Castillo, argued this constituted an option to renew, while the Respondents, Salvatore and Anna Cancelli, contended it was merely a right of first refusal.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, the court found the clause granted the tenant an option to renew the lease for an additional five-year period, emphasizing the need to give meaning to all terms and avoid commercial absurdity.