Matthew Adam Fisher

The defendant, Fancamp Exploration Ltd., brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of defence in a contract dispute with Fouad Kamaleddine and FFK Consulting Services Inc. The motion was opposed by the plaintiffs due to its lateness, being brought two weeks before the pretrial and eleven weeks before trial.

The court reviewed the proposed amendments and found that, except for a new unconscionability defence introduced at the last minute, the amendments would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The court granted leave to amend except for the last sentence of new paragraph 39, which introduced the unconscionability defence.

No costs were awarded due to the defendant's delay and partial success.

This is an appeal from a trial judgment awarding damages in lieu of notice for termination from employment.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's assessment of the respondent’s reasonable notice period, entitlement to a bonus payment during the notice period, and the inclusion of disbursements from a mandatory mediation in the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's application of Bardal factors or the inclusion of pro-rata bonus entitlement.

The court also affirmed that expenses for mandatory mediation, even with a non-roster mediator, are properly included as disbursements in a costs award.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment award of $310,040.88 in damages to its former employee, representing 19 months' pay in lieu of notice plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The motion judge had found the termination clause in the employment agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the employer's offer of employment to the employee upon the sale of the business constituted valid consideration for the termination clause.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving variations to a single employment relationship, emphasizing that a new contract with a new employer was formed upon the business sale.

The court remitted the action to trial to address remaining issues regarding ESA compliance and other arguments not previously decided.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action seeking damages equivalent to 24 months’ reasonable notice after being dismissed without cause following more than 22 years of employment.

The defendant argued that the notice period should be between 12 and 16 months and that the plaintiff failed to reasonably mitigate her damages.

The court held that the motion record was inadequate to resolve conflicting evidence regarding the plaintiff’s mitigation efforts and the availability of comparable employment opportunities, both of which are relevant to determining reasonable notice under the Bardal factors.

Because credibility assessments and fuller evidence were required, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was scheduled for a two‑day trial.