Andrew Reynolds

The plaintiff, a building manager, was terminated when the building's property management contract changed hands.

The new service provider, Duka, did not retain him.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court had to determine whether the old provider (Crossbridge) or the new provider (Duka) was liable for common law notice under s. 75 of the Employment Standards Act.

The court held that the new provider is responsible for common law notice, as this interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to stabilize employment in the building services sector.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' notice, plus 10% for lost benefits, rejecting the defendants' argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following his termination.

The application was filed more than one year after the termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for timeliness.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination was the termination, and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay in filing.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, aged 64, alleged age discrimination after being unsuccessful in a job competition for a full-time Fire Chief position.

The successful candidate was approximately 20 years younger.

The Tribunal applied a one-step circumstantial evidence test, rejecting the traditional three-step test.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided rational, credible, and non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decision, specifically that the successful candidate demonstrated a better grasp of current issues, proposed better solutions, and exhibited a more compatible, team-oriented management style during the interview.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after not being awarded the position of Fire Chief.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the narrative of the Application on consent.

The Tribunal also granted intervenor status to the incumbent Fire Chief, finding he had the potential to be directly and significantly affected by the final decision.