Ryan Wozniak

The appellant was employed under a five-year fixed-term contract and was terminated without cause after 23 months.

The motion judge found the early termination clause unenforceable and awarded common law reasonable notice damages subject to mitigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where an employment contract is for a fixed term and lacks an enforceable early termination provision, the employee is entitled to the salary and benefits for the unexpired portion of the term.

Furthermore, the court held that there is no duty to mitigate damages arising from the early termination of a fixed-term contract.

The appellant employer appealed a costs award of $6,000 granted to the respondent employee following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The employer argued the motions judge's reasons were insufficient and inconsistent with her findings, given the employee had rejected pre-litigation offers that exceeded the final judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge properly considered that the employer's offers did not trigger Rule 49 costs consequences and that the employee's unreasonable rejection of pre-litigation offers justified the significantly reduced costs award.

The costs decision disclosed no error in principle and was entitled to deference.

The appellant, a second mortgagee on a matrimonial home, appealed a judgment denying its claim for additional funds and interest based on unregistered amending agreements.

The appellant argued its claim trumped that of an execution creditor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had previously admitted its security only applied to the registered principal amount and had taken an inconsistent position in a separate action.

The court also rejected the appellant's equitable mortgage argument and upheld the costs awards.

Following a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff 16 months' pay in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal, the parties disputed the calculation of damages.

The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a car allowance and that his commissions should be calculated separately based on actual earnings pro-rated over the notice period.

However, the court agreed with the defendant that the award is subject to statutory deductions, including the repayment of Employment Insurance benefits to the Receiver General.

The court also held that pre-judgment interest must be calculated on the shortfall of payments during the salary continuance period, rather than as a lump sum, following the Court of Appeal's decision in Lowndes.

The moving party brought a motion to vary an order of a single judge that lifted a stay because the moving party failed to provide credible proof of financing without conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the single judge's decision.

The court also held that the moving party could not seek to vary an earlier order after having accepted it and failed to comply with its conditions.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the responding party.

The landlord brought an urgent motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the automatic stay.

The tenant argued he was a purchaser in interim occupancy, not a tenant, challenging the Board's jurisdiction.

The court declined to quash the appeal, finding an arguable question of law.

Balancing the hardship to the landlord's pending third-party sale against the tenant's loss of his home, the court granted the tenant a brief final opportunity to secure financing to purchase the property, failing which the stay would be lifted.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for a determination of law regarding the enforceability of a termination clause in his fixed-term employment contract, and a motion for summary judgment for damages for wrongful dismissal.

The court found the termination clause to be ambiguous regarding the continuation of benefits and whether the amounts paid were exhaustive, rendering it unenforceable and triggering the common law entitlement to reasonable notice.

However, the court declined to grant summary judgment for the balance of the fixed term, finding that a genuine issue for trial existed regarding the appropriate reasonable notice period and the plaintiff's duty to mitigate.

The court ordered a mini-trial under Rule 20.04(2.2) to hear oral evidence on these issues.

The moving parties, construction lien creditors of the Mady Group of Companies, brought a motion seeking to lift a CCAA stay of proceedings, amend their statements of claim, and obtain a Mareva injunction against several individuals and corporations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to make full and fair disclosure, failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud or breach of trust, and provided no evidence of a risk of dissipation or removal of assets from the jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order recognizing and enforcing a $3,000,000 California judgment against him in Ontario.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal to argue the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence inadmissible as it did not meet the Palmer test and the motion judge's prior order refusing the evidence was not appealed.

The court found no reason to interfere with the motion judge's application of the Beals v. Saldanha test for recognizing foreign judgments.

The applicant, a self-represented retail employee, alleged race-based discrimination and reprisal against her employer and several co-workers.

Following the conclusion of the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal directed written submissions on whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay after the applicant missed submission deadlines.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss for delay, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

On the merits of the summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of differential treatment, reduction in hours, and denial of benefits, finding no evidence linking these events to the applicant's race.

However, the Tribunal found that the reprisal allegation regarding the applicant's suspension and termination shortly after filing the human rights application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The hearing was directed to proceed solely on the reprisal issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and age after the respondent declined to hire him for a permanent position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations predating March 21, 2010 were untimely and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

Regarding the timely allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success as he failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's decision not to hire him to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.