J. Pinkus

The plaintiff, a blaze welder with 36 years of service at a predecessor company, was terminated shortly after the defendant purchased the business.

The defendant argued it only purchased assets and hired the plaintiff on a fixed-term contract as a general labourer to assist with moving.

The court found the defendant purchased the business as a going concern and failed to unambiguously communicate a fixed-term contract to the plaintiff, making her an indefinite employee.

Applying the Bardal factors and recognizing her prior service, the court awarded the plaintiff 12 months' reasonable notice.

The plaintiff employee, who had been on a prolonged medical leave of absence since 2012, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, arguing his employment contract was frustrated due to illness.

The defendant employer argued frustration requires an act of the employer and denied the contract was frustrated.

The court held that frustration occurs as a matter of law when there is no reasonable likelihood of the employee returning to work, which occurred in October 2016 based on medical evidence.

The court granted summary judgment for the statutory entitlements but dismissed the plaintiff's claim for punitive and aggravated damages, finding the employer's conduct was not malicious.

The plaintiff, a 40-year-old product manager with 19 months of service, brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found summary judgment appropriate and awarded nine months' notice plus 10% for benefits, totaling $78,333.40.

The notice period was at the high end of the range due to an onerous non-competition clause and the employer's failure to provide a reference letter.

The court also awarded $16,000 in costs, applying substantial indemnity consequences for beating a Rule 49 offer.