Malini Vijaykumar

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old long-term employee of Air Canada, was terminated without cause due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court awarded a 24-month reasonable notice period.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to damages for lost group benefits, pension contributions, and potential 2021 bonus payments, as the employment contract did not unambiguously limit these common law rights.

Claims for travel privileges and a 25th-anniversary award were dismissed as they were non-contractual privileges.

The employer failed to prove the plaintiff did not reasonably mitigate her damages.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal following an asset sale of the business.

He claimed entitlement to 12 months' notice under his employment agreement due to a change in control.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by unreasonably rejecting an offer of comparable employment from the purchasing company.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had fully mitigated his damages through earnings generated by his own corporation during the notice period.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant brought an eve-of-trial motion to adjourn the trial and compel further disclosure and discovery regarding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts through his corporation.

The plaintiff had previously answered 'zero' when asked about personal income from the corporation, but recently produced a ledger showing significant shareholder loan repayments.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding the plaintiff had an ongoing obligation to correct misleading discovery answers.

The court ordered limited additional documentary production and a brief discovery, but declined to adjourn the trial, directing that the discovery be completed before the trial commenced the following week.

The applicant, 2303757 Ontario Inc. ("230"), sought forfeiture of a $200,000 deposit held in trust by Bratty's LLP following a failed real estate transaction.

The respondent, 2149589 Ontario Inc. ("214"), claimed entitlement to the funds, arguing they were its money, paid without its full authorization, and that 230 was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The court found that the funds constituted a deposit subject to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), that 230 became a bona fide purchaser for value without notice when the agreement terminated due to the buyer's breach, and that 230 acquired an absolute interest in the funds at that time, regardless of whether they were physically in its hands.

The application for forfeiture was granted.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 25.10 and 30.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking document production and particulars regarding an alleged agreement of purchase and sale for parkland.

The court found the plaintiff's responses to the document inspection requests satisfactory, as the plaintiff produced the draft agreements and emails relied upon.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to provide further particulars regarding the facts relied upon to support the allegation that the unsigned draft agreement was binding and properly entered into.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to recuse the judge for bias, the responding party, Falconers LLP, sought its costs.

The applicant had relied on an unsworn complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council containing serious, unsubstantiated allegations against the court.

The court held that costs should follow the event and that the responding party was reasonably required to attend the motion.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,165.