Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Shekhdar v. K & M Engineering and Consulting Corporation, 2013 ONCA 521

DATE: 20130822

DOCKET: C49094

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

[1] The 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.

[2] On 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.”

[3] The 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.

[4] The 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.

[5] The 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.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

[7] The 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.”