Dorian N. Persaud

This is an appeal of a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The motion judge had awarded the appellant damages equivalent to six months' reasonable notice, reduced by two months for failure to mitigate.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in reducing the appellant's damages for failure to mitigate.

Specifically, the motion judge erred in principle by suggesting the appellant should have sought lesser-paying jobs and made a palpable and overriding error by concluding the appellant "aimed too high" based solely on job titles without considering comparable duties.

The Court emphasized that the employer bears a heavy burden to prove both that the employee failed to take reasonable steps and that comparable employment would have been found.

The appeal was allowed, and the damages were based on an eight-month notice period without the two-month reduction.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $97,500, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendant had made an early Rule 49 offer to settle for $107,000, which the plaintiff did not accept.

Because the plaintiff recovered less than the defendant's offer, the court applied Rule 49.10(2) and awarded the defendant its partial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $27,000 in costs to the defendant.

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old general manager in the media industry, was terminated without cause after 5.5 years of employment.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the reasonable notice period to be 8 months.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to damages for her lost bonus, as it was an integral part of her compensation and not unambiguously excluded by her contract.

However, the notice period was reduced by 2 months because the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages, having delayed her job search and applied almost exclusively for more senior roles.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages arising from termination of employment without cause.

The appellant was employed for over 19 years and received 8 weeks' notice and severance pay consistent with statutory minimums.

The key issues were whether a termination clause must expressly state it displaces common law notice rights, whether the clause violated the Employment Standards Act by failing to reference severance pay, and whether the clause entitled the appellant to 19 weeks' notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the termination clause clearly displaced common law rights without requiring express language, did not violate the ESA, and entitled the appellant to 19 weeks' notice (one week per year of service), resulting in an award of compensation for an additional 11 weeks plus interest.

The plaintiff, an 18-year employee, was on an unpaid medical leave of absence when the defendant employer provided working notice that it was shutting down operations.

The plaintiff remained unable to work for most of the notice period.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the salary he would have earned during the notice period, despite being unable to work.

The court set the reasonable notice period at 12 months and found the plaintiff had reasonably mitigated his damages by finding comparable employment shortly after the business closed.

The plaintiff, Joseph Nemeth, sought summary judgment in an employment termination case against Hatch Ltd. Nemeth argued that the termination clause in his employment contract was ambiguous and attempted to contract out of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, particularly regarding severance and benefits, thus entitling him to common law reasonable notice.

The court, following its prior decision in Cook v. Hatch Ltd., found the termination clause unambiguous and compliant with the Act, rejecting the argument that silence on severance and benefits constituted an attempt to contract out.

The court also distinguished Singh v. Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd., which had found ambiguity in a similar clause.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted to the defendant, dismissing the action.