Daniel Asher Lublin

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming her employment was terminated because she took maternity leave.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing the termination was for performance-related reasons and lack of compliance with regulations.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not point to evidence linking her termination to her maternity leave, other than the timing.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's reprisal claim regarding a Small Claims Court proceeding.

The application was dismissed.

The employer appealed a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff damages based on a six-month notice period for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court upheld the summary judgment, finding no material facts in dispute regarding the notice period or mitigation efforts.

However, the court reduced the damages by $2,800 due to a calculation error regarding benefits.

The court also granted leave to appeal costs and increased the plaintiff's costs award to $18,000, finding the motion judge erred by failing to apply the cost consequences of Rule 49 after the plaintiff made a favourable offer to settle.

The appellant appealed a judgment, arguing the motion judge erred by assessing the respondent's mitigation efforts without cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons and concluding that mitigation efforts could be fairly assessed on the record.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $6,000.

The plaintiff was successful on an appeal regarding the enforcement of an employment agreement containing a non-exclusive attornment clause.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs for both the appeal and the underlying motion.

The defendant argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge due to the inter-relationship of the issues.

The court rejected the defendant's argument, holding that costs should follow the event, and awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $13,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

The employment contract contained a non-exclusive attornment clause to the State of Washington.

The Master stayed the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding the clause shifted the onus to the plaintiff to prove Ontario was the more appropriate forum.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the Master erred in law; the onus does not shift when the validity of the clause is challenged based on public policy and unequal bargaining power.

The appeal was allowed and the stay dismissed.