Court of Appeal for Ontario
BEFORE: Doherty, Rosenberg and Tulloch JJ.A.
Parties
Kersasp Shekhdar Plaintiff (Appellant)
and
K & M Engineering and Consulting Corporation, Freewills Inc., Freewills.com (U.S.) Inc., William Kappaz, Regina Guerin, Freewills.com (Bermuda) Limited also known as Freewills.com (Bermuda) Ltd., Freewills.com (Canada) Inc. and 3693759 Canada Inc. Defendants (Respondents)
Counsel and Hearing
Kersasp Shekhdar, appearing via videoconference
Matthew Moloci, for the respondents
Heard and released orally: August 13, 2013
On appeal from the judgment of Justice J. Thorburn of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 6, 2008.
ENDORSEMENT
1The trial judge identified the applicable legal principles and applied those principles to the facts as found by her. Her findings of fact are entitled to deference. We have not been convinced that we can interfere with any of her factual findings.
2On the trial judge’s finding, the agreement of April 25, 2001 governed the working relationship between the appellant and the respondent, K & M Engineering throughout the relevant time period. That agreement provided for termination for “any reason whatsoever or no reason on 15 days’ prior written notice.”
3The trial judge found that the appellant did not breach the terms of his agreement with K & M Engineering and Consulting Corporation at least to the extent that K & M Engineering and Consulting Corporation was entitled to terminate the contract without any prior notice. The trial judge further found, however, in accordance with the language of the agreement that K & M Engineering and Consulting Corporation was entitled to terminate the working relationship with the appellant for “any reason” or “no reason” upon 15 days’ written notice.
4The trial judge’s interpretation of the clear language of the agreement is unassailable regardless of whether the appellant is characterized as an employee or an independent contractor. In accordance with the termination provision in the contract, the trial judge awarded damages in the amount of $3,789.93.
5The trial judge carefully considered and rejected the various other claims advanced by the appellant. We see no error in her analysis of those claims or in the conclusions she reached.
6The appeal is dismissed.
7The respondent will provide written submissions as to costs of no more than five pages within 30 days. The appellant will reply in no more than five pages with his submissions on costs within 30 days thereafter.
“Doherty J.A.”
“M. Rosenberg J.A.”
“M. Tulloch J.A.”