Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Emami v. Pancon Engineering Limited, 2007 ONCA 865

Date: 2007-12-10

Docket: C45692

Before: CRONK, BLAIR and LaFORME JJ.A.

Between:

HAMID EMAMI Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

PANCON ENGINEERING LIMITED and MIKE PANAHI Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel: Howard Markowitz, for the appellant Peter T.J. Danson, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: November 29, 2007

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Patrick J. Moore of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 21, 2006.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals, on various grounds, against the dismissal of his action for damages for the alleged wrongful termination of his employment with the corporate respondent.

[2] In our view, the trial judge’s factual findings are dispositive of this appeal. In the face of conflicting evidence from the parties on virtually every issue in contention, the trial judge weighed the documentary and oral evidence – as he was required to do – and, in the end, rejected the appellant’s version of events.

[3] The appellant, in effect, seeks to overturn the trial judge’s factual findings and to re-argue his case. However, the trial judge’s factual findings, which flowed from his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and his weighing of conflicting evidence, attract considerable deference from this court. They were amply supported by the evidence at trial and no palpable and overriding error concerning them has been demonstrated. Thus, appellate intervention is precluded.

[4] Counsel for the appellant argued, in part, that the trial judge erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the September 13, 2004 letter relied upon by the appellant, instead relying on the October 19, 2004 letter produced by the respondents. It is important to note that this is not a case where the parties assert different interpretations of the contents of a written employment contract. Rather, at this trial, the parties relied on different documents entirely, which contained starkly different terms, to support their conflicting versions of the terms of the appellant’s employment. As we have said, the trial judge clearly rejected the appellant’s version, as he was entitled to do.

[5] The appellant’s appeal in respect of the corporate respondent, therefore, cannot succeed. There is no suggestion that his claims against the individual respondent can survive absent liability of the corporate respondent.

[6] Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are entitled to their costs of this appeal, fixed in the total amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“R.A. Blair J.A.”

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”