Jonathan Laurence Dye

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Moyra Miller, finding that she was wrongfully dismissed by Alaya Care Inc. The court held that the termination provisions in the employment agreement and offer letter were unenforceable as they violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and did not clearly rebut the presumption of reasonable notice at common law.

The court found that Miller was induced to leave secure employment, and awarded her damages based on a 14-month reasonable notice period, including lost salary, benefits, bonus, and RSUs.

The appellant, Losani Homes (1998) Ltd., appealed a lower court decision that found their employment termination clauses void but upheld the validity of a fixed-term employment contract for the respondent, Kim Kopyl.

Losani Homes argued that the invalidity of the termination clauses, per *Waksdale*, should also void the fixed-term clause, converting the contract to one terminable on reasonable notice with a duty to mitigate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the invalidity of termination clauses does not affect a fixed-term clause, distinguishing *Waksdale* and reaffirming *Howard v. Benson Group Inc.* The Court held that the employee was entitled to compensation for the unexpired portion of the fixed term without a duty to mitigate.

The court determined costs following a 6-day trial where the plaintiff, Keith Cordeiro, was found to have stolen money from the defendant, Pinnacle Caterers Ltd., leading to his justifiable termination.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, citing a Rule 49 offer to settle on a mutual walk-away basis, which the plaintiff repeatedly refused.

The plaintiff argued inability to pay and disproportionality of costs to the amounts in issue.

The court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the plaintiff's conscious decision to proceed to trial despite knowing the financial implications and the defendant's reasonable settlement offer.

The court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs, rounded down to an all-inclusive amount of $150,000, pursuant to Rule 49 and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

This wrongful dismissal trial addressed whether the plaintiff, a system supervisor, stole money from the defendant catering company.

The defendant terminated the plaintiff for cause, alleging theft of cash payments.

The parties agreed that if theft was proven, just cause was established, and the defendant would receive $15,000 on its counterclaim; otherwise, the plaintiff would receive $29,827.53 for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the plaintiff had indeed stolen $412.39 by manipulating the point-of-sale system to void cash transactions and transfer them to a "test check" to hide the theft.

The defendant's investigation, though not protracted, was deemed effective and accurate.

The plaintiff's claim for wrongful dismissal was dismissed, and the defendant's counterclaim for $15,000 was granted.