Court File and Parties

CITATION: Horwitz v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2019 ONSC 7583

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 18-337

DATE: 20190918

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: HORWITZ, Applicant/Appellant

AND:

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, Respondent

BEFORE: Myers, J.

COUNSEL: Howard Markowitz, for the Applicant/Appellant

Edward O’Dwyer and Frank Cesario, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto:

TRANSCRIPTION OF HANDWRITTEN ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Judge interpreted the employment agreement and found it unambiguous. The 3 week minimum notice only applies when there is a release. The other option – where there is no release or an employee is terminated within 3 months, provides for employment standards legislation to apply. These are two separate baskets that do not overlap.

[2] Sattva provides than an appellate court is to defer to interpretation of a contract absent palpable/overriding error or an extricable error of law. The judge carefully recited the applicable law and applied a business-like, sensible reading to which I must and do defer.

[3] I do not accept the argument that a broad amendment clause is necessarily void or, even if it is, voids the termination clause. No law was provided for that position.

[4] I also do not accept that the Judge adds words to the agreement to find that the CLC [[Canada Labour Code, RSC 1985, c L-2] applied. The statute applied by its terms. The fact that it provided no entitlement to the appellant was properly dealt with by the Judge.

[5] Appeal dismissed.

[6] Costs to CIBC fixed at $4,000 all-in are to be paid within sixty (60) days.

“F.L. Myers”

Myers, J.

Date: September 18, 2019