The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after termination without cause following 31 years of service.
The court applied the principles in Hryniak v. Mauldin and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.
Considering the Bardal factors, including the employee’s age, lengthy service, supervisory role, and proximity to eligibility for an unreduced pension, the court determined that damages should effectively bridge the employee to his pension entitlement rather than apply a full 22‑month notice period.
The court rejected the employer’s mitigation arguments, finding that the employee’s extensive job search and acceptance of lower-paying retail work satisfied the duty to mitigate.
Judgment was granted for salary to the pension qualification date, compensation for lost pension value, and the contractual retirement allowance.
