Justin Heimpel

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee 17 months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the notice period was too long and that the trial judge erred by not deducting all income earned by the respondent during the notice period, as she worked more hours at a lower hourly rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the 17-month notice period based on the Bardal factors.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's decision to only deduct mitigation income equivalent to her previous 30-hour work week, noting the new employment was at a substantially lower rate of pay and required differing hours.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that dismissed its claim for loss of rent against a former commercial tenant.

The landlord argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding a rent-free period granted to a new tenant while repairs were completed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The court held there was sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the repairs, which were the landlord's responsibility, were completed concurrently with the new tenant's leasehold improvements.

The applicant alleged that she was subjected to derogatory conduct and comments related to her gender by a co-worker, and that the employer failed to take appropriate action, forcing her to resign.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and preferred the respondents' evidence that the workplace conflicts stemmed from work performance issues rather than gender.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or harassment on the basis of sex, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a former on-site superintendent, alleged she was terminated and harassed during her employment on the basis of sex and religion by her supervisor and the property management board.

The Tribunal found that the employer's decision not to renew the applicant's employment contract was based on documented performance concerns and tenant complaints, not discriminatory factors.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the supervisor's comments regarding the applicant's strength and occasional discussions about religion did not amount to a course of vexatious conduct that was known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.

The application was dismissed.