Heather Cameron

The plaintiff, Steven Kerzner, brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against American Iron & Metal Company Inc. (AIM).

Kerzner sought common law notice based on 35 years of service, arguing that termination provisions and restrictive covenants in his fixed-term employment contracts were invalid and unenforceable.

AIM counterclaimed for breach of non-solicitation and non-competition clauses and fiduciary duties.

The court found that the termination provisions were valid based on a 2008 release limiting service to 7 years for ESA purposes, but the non-competition and non-solicitation clauses were unreasonable and unenforceable given the fixed-term nature of the contract and broad geographic scope.

The court dismissed AIM's counterclaim for breach of restrictive covenants and fiduciary duty, and held that Kerzner was entitled to the contractual termination payment without a duty to mitigate.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his lack of knowledge about his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law without a reasonable explanation for failing to make timely inquiries does not constitute good faith.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding a wheelchair ramp at the respondents' premises.

The incident occurred in October 2008, but the application was not filed until December 2012.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and reprisal by his former employer.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or for delay.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to events from 2007 to 2009 and a comment in March 2011 were untimely and not part of a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of proving that the remaining alleged mistreatment, including warnings, failure to promote, suspension, and termination, was linked to his race or constituted a reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.