The plaintiff, a building manager, was terminated when the building's property management contract changed hands.
The new service provider, Duka, did not retain him.
On a motion for summary judgment, the court had to determine whether the old provider (Crossbridge) or the new provider (Duka) was liable for common law notice under s. 75 of the Employment Standards Act.
The court held that the new provider is responsible for common law notice, as this interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to stabilize employment in the building services sector.
The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' notice, plus 10% for lost benefits, rejecting the defendants' argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.
