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.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on marital status following the termination of her employment.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for two weeks' pay.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if proceeding would be an abuse of process.

Applying the Pritchard factors, the Tribunal found the applicant understood she was signing a release, received sufficient consideration, and was not subject to economic pressure or duress.

The presence of a security guard outside the meeting room did not constitute duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a 98-year-old woman, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability against a condominium corporation and property management company due to delays in repairing a unit she intended to move into.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the applicant provided no evidence linking the repair delays to her age or disability beyond mere speculation, the Tribunal dismissed the applications.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include a list of discriminatory incidents dating back to 2005.

The respondent objected on the basis of delay and requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request to add incidents occurring more than a year prior to the application, finding they were either not part of a series or would cause prejudice due to delay.

The Tribunal allowed the addition of three recent allegations and denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing.

The applicant requested an order to amend his human rights application.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the proposed amendments did not comply with Rule 6.2 of the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the proposed amended application lacked proper particulars, such as when, where, and by whom the alleged discrimination and harassment occurred, which would be unfair to the respondent and hinder active case management.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment, initially seeking $30,000 to $40,000 in damages while self-represented.

After retaining a representative and participating in an unsuccessful mediation, the applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the requested remedy to $100,000.

The respondents objected, arguing the request was untimely and prejudicial.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment did not change the nature of the allegations, would not affect the hearing schedule, and caused no clear prejudice to the respondents.