Ian D. Hurley

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for summary judgment claiming he was terminated without cause with 72 weeks remaining on a fixed-term employment contract.

He sought liquidated damages for the balance of the term, while leaving alternative claims regarding the validity of the termination clause for trial if unsuccessful.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate in these circumstances.

Applying the principles from Butera and Hryniak, the court held that bifurcating the issues risked inconsistent findings at trial and would not serve the goals of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment award of $310,040.88 in damages to its former employee, representing 19 months' pay in lieu of notice plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The motion judge had found the termination clause in the employment agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the employer's offer of employment to the employee upon the sale of the business constituted valid consideration for the termination clause.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving variations to a single employment relationship, emphasizing that a new contract with a new employer was formed upon the business sale.

The court remitted the action to trial to address remaining issues regarding ESA compliance and other arguments not previously decided.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated in a discriminatory manner based on her family and marital status, following an investigation into a scheme to defraud the respondent through its damaged goods sales program.

The respondent terminated the applicant and several of her family members, concluding they had participated in the scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's relationship with her father-in-law and brothers-in-law did not fall within the Code's definition of family status.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation that the applicant was terminated because it reasonably believed she had knowingly benefited from stolen merchandise and had been untruthful during the investigation, rather than because of her marital relationship with her husband.

The applicant, whose employment was terminated for alleged involvement in a scheme to defraud the respondent's damaged goods program, sought to call the respondent's Vice-President of Distribution Operations as a witness after the respondent decided not to call him.

The applicant argued his evidence was relevant to show he also benefited from the program.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the proposed evidence irrelevant to assessing whether the applicant's termination was discriminatory based on marital and family status, as the Vice-President was not investigated and did not make the termination decision.