Landon P. Young

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment claiming constructive dismissal after his employer unilaterally cancelled his company vehicle benefit.

The court found the cancellation constituted a significant reduction in compensation and amounted to constructive dismissal.

The employment contract's termination clause was deemed void for ambiguity regarding statutory minimums.

The court set a reasonable notice period of 10 months, but reduced it by 30% to 7 months because the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by moving away from the job market.

The parent company was found to be a common employer.

Damages were awarded in the amount of $56,025.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing that the termination clause in his employment contract was unenforceable.

The court found the termination clause violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000, by improperly combining notice and severance pay and by contracting around the "willful misconduct" standard for just cause, rendering the entire contract void.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the plaintiff four months of common law reasonable notice, plus benefits, less amounts already paid and mitigated earnings, but declined to award a discretionary bonus.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a trial judge's order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the award fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 during the litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the plaintiff's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the plaintiff's unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal trial.

The trial judge had denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the recovery was within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 after the action was commenced.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the moving party's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

Following a wrongful dismissal action in which the plaintiff recovered $12,514, the plaintiff sought costs exceeding $21,000.

The amount awarded fell well within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

The court considered Rule 57.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a denial of costs where a plaintiff recovers an amount within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court held that the policy underlying the rule applied even though the action was commenced before the jurisdictional limit increased.

As the claim clearly could have been pursued in Small Claims Court and no exceptional circumstances justified Superior Court proceedings, the court declined to award costs.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause following a workplace altercation where he struck a co-worker.

The court applied a contextual approach and found the single incident of misconduct, which involved provocation and no prior disciplinary record, did not constitute just cause for dismissal.

The court also held that an employment contract limiting notice to statutory minimums was unenforceable for lack of consideration, as it was signed after the plaintiff had already commenced employment.

The plaintiff was awarded 4.5 months' pay in lieu of notice, totaling $12,514.00.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee.

The employer had terminated the employee alleging sexual harassment of co-workers.

The trial judge found the conduct was non-sexual, alcohol-induced harassment that warranted progressive discipline, not dismissal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on just cause, the exclusion of a deceased witness's hearsay statement, the modest Wallace extension, and the award for lost benefits.

The appeal was dismissed.