COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Longaphie v. Canerector Inc., 2016 ONCA 26
DATE: 20160112
DOCKET: C61074
Weiler, LaForme and Huscroft
BETWEEN
Philip Longaphie
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
Canerector Properties Inc.
Defendant (Appellant)
Matthew R. Vella, for the appellant
Lia Moody, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: January 11, 2015
On appeal from the order of Justice Andra Pollak of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 16, 2015.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The parties agreed that this case was appropriate for summary judgment. The issue before the motion judge was the length of reasonable notice to which the respondent employee was entitled. The motion judge determined that the appropriate period of reasonable notice in this case was six months. The appellant appeals and raises two issues.
Did the motion judge err in awarding the respondent six months’ reasonable notice and, if so, what period of reasonable notice should be substituted by this court?
Did the motion judge err in failing to deduct mitigation income from the amount awarded to the respondent for reasonable notice?
[2] The motion judge appears to have placed undue emphasis on the fourth factor of Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., (1960), 1960 CanLII 294 (ON SC), 24 D.L.R. (2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.) namely, availability of comparable employment having regard to the experience, training and qualification of the employee. That said, considering the Bardal factors as a whole, the motion judge’s decision to award six months’ notice is not so clearly outside the range as to warrant appellate intervention.
[3] The respondent worked for five days, earning $1,634.62 gross, during the six month notice period. The respondent agrees that the six month notice period should be reduced by that amount.
[4] The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
[5] By agreement, costs of the appeal are fixed in the amount of $4000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes and are payable to the respondent.
“K.M. Weiler J.A.”
“H.S. LaForme J.A.”
“Grant Huscroft J.A.”