Matthew R. Vella

The plaintiff, a building manager, was terminated when the building's property management contract changed hands.

The new service provider, Duka, did not retain him.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court had to determine whether the old provider (Crossbridge) or the new provider (Duka) was liable for common law notice under s. 75 of the Employment Standards Act.

The court held that the new provider is responsible for common law notice, as this interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to stabilize employment in the building services sector.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' notice, plus 10% for lost benefits, rejecting the defendants' argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court had previously awarded the plaintiff eight months' notice and a pro-rated bonus, totaling $106,883.02.

The plaintiff requested costs of $71,701.63 on a mixed partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendant argued the requested costs were excessive and disproportionate, suggesting $20,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, found the plaintiff's counsel's time spent disproportionate to the case's complexity, despite the plaintiff's success and a favourable offer to settle.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $35,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The core issue was the enforceability of a termination clause that the plaintiff argued contracted out of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) by failing to explicitly provide for severance and benefit continuation.

The court found the termination clause unenforceable because it potentially provided less than the ESA minimums.

The plaintiff was awarded 8 months' reasonable notice at common law and compensation for lost bonuses during the notice period, as the bonuses were found to be an integral, non-discretionary part of his compensation.

The claim for lost benefits was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of actual loss.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee six months' reasonable notice.

The employer argued the notice period was too long and that the motion judge failed to deduct mitigation income.

The Court of Appeal upheld the six-month notice period, finding it was not outside the acceptable range despite the motion judge's emphasis on the availability of comparable employment.

On consent, the court reduced the award by $1,634.62 to account for mitigation income earned during the notice period.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.