Eytan B. Rip

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 tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his applications for substantial interference and failure to meet maintenance obligations.

The tenant and his family had moved into the rental unit but left the next day because it was unsafe and unfit for habitation due to ongoing repairs.

The Divisional Court found the Board erred in law by focusing on the tenant's prior knowledge of the unit's condition, ignoring evidence of the severity of the deficiencies, and failing to provide a remedy despite finding the unit unfit for habitation.

The appeal was allowed, and the tenant was awarded the return of his deposit, rent abatement, and out-of-pocket expenses.

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.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim regarding a disputed gas supply contract, seeking to withdraw an allegation of forgery and instead plead misrepresentation and deceit.

The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing it raised a new cause of action that was statute-barred.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the fundamental issue remained the validity of the contract and the amendment did not constitute a new cause of action.

The court also noted that for limitation purposes, a new claim is commenced when the motion to amend is brought.