Lia Moody

The 74-year-old plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action after 31 years of service with the defendant construction company.

The defendant claimed the plaintiff had voluntarily retired in 2010 and was only working on an as-needed basis.

The court found no evidence of retirement and concluded the plaintiff was terminated without cause in October 2012.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 20 months' pay in lieu of notice, finding the plaintiff was not required to mitigate by accepting a demeaning demotion to a flagman position.

The plaintiff, Roy Fillmore, was terminated from his employment after 19 years and 3 months and commenced an action for wrongful dismissal.

Both parties agreed to proceed by way of a motion for summary judgment to determine two issues: the amount of common law reasonable notice and whether the plaintiff's damages should be reduced due to an alleged failure to mitigate.

The court determined a reasonable notice period of 17 months.

It also found that the plaintiff did not fail to mitigate by refusing a demotion to a lower-paying, permanent position with the same employer, as this was not an offer to work through the notice period and could have prejudiced his rights.

The plaintiff, a facilities manager with 15 years of service, sued for wrongful dismissal after being placed on a temporary layoff.

He brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the layoff constituted constructive dismissal.

The court found that the unilateral layoff, absent a contractual term, was indeed a constructive dismissal.

However, the court also found that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by refusing a genuine offer of reinstatement to his exact same position and by not making reasonable efforts to find alternative employment.

Consequently, the plaintiff's damages were limited to three months' salary in lieu of notice, corresponding to the period he would have been out of work had he accepted the reinstatement offer.

The individual defendants, Mark Harrison and Graham Lee, brought a motion to strike the action against them in an employment law claim and also sought an order for particulars.

The plaintiff, Gary Watson, alleged constructive dismissal and a poisoned work environment due to the individual defendants' conduct.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiff's statement of claim alleged independent wrongdoing by the individual defendants, which was actionable.

The court also dismissed the demand for particulars, noting that the defendants had not demonstrated the particulars were outside their knowledge or necessary to plead.