Michael A. Kleinman

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The parties had agreed at the hearing that the successful party would receive $25,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found no reason to depart from this agreement and awarded $25,000 in costs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that they validly rescinded a franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act due to deficient disclosure, and claiming rescission damages of $228,611.83.

The defendants argued that adequate disclosure was provided and that the plaintiffs did not rely on the allegedly missing documents.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial due to significant conflicts in the evidence regarding what documents were provided and when, and whether the plaintiffs were deprived of the opportunity to make an informed investment decision.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to stay or transfer two Small Claims Court actions commenced by the plaintiff to the Superior Court, where a related misrepresentation action was pending.

The Superior Court action alleged misrepresentations inducing the franchise agreement, while the Small Claims Court actions alleged post-agreement contractual breaches regarding a promotion fund and fee reductions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the actions were factually and legally distinct, and that transferring the smaller claims would impose an unnecessary financial burden on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action following termination without cause.

The employer relied on an employment contract purporting to limit termination entitlements to those provided under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and to exclude any common law damages.

The court held the termination clause was unenforceable because it limited compensation to salary and failed to ensure continuation of benefits during the statutory notice period, contrary to s. 61(1) of the ESA and therefore void under s. 5(1).

As a result, the plaintiff was entitled to pursue common law reasonable notice.

The court determined that prior service with the predecessor company following insolvency and a CCAA restructuring should not be credited for common law notice purposes and awarded eight months’ reasonable notice.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action following termination after approximately ten years of employment within a family-run corporate group.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff had been employed by two separate companies and that the earlier employer had terminated his employment prior to the transition.

The court held that the related corporations constituted a common employer due to common control, overlapping leadership, and integrated operations.

The court further found that the plaintiff had adequately mitigated his damages and that no genuine issue requiring a trial existed.

Summary judgment was granted, awarding damages for nine months’ notice plus out‑of‑pocket benefits losses.