Stan Fainzilberg

The plaintiff, an 18-year employee, was on an unpaid medical leave of absence when the defendant employer provided working notice that it was shutting down operations.

The plaintiff remained unable to work for most of the notice period.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the salary he would have earned during the notice period, despite being unable to work.

The court set the reasonable notice period at 12 months and found the plaintiff had reasonably mitigated his damages by finding comparable employment shortly after the business closed.

The 74-year-old plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action after 31 years of service with the defendant construction company.

The defendant claimed the plaintiff had voluntarily retired in 2010 and was only working on an as-needed basis.

The court found no evidence of retirement and concluded the plaintiff was terminated without cause in October 2012.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 20 months' pay in lieu of notice, finding the plaintiff was not required to mitigate by accepting a demeaning demotion to a flagman position.

An employee dismissed without cause brought a summary judgment motion seeking determination of the reasonable notice period for wrongful dismissal damages.

The court applied the Bardal factors including age, length of service, character of employment, and availability of comparable employment.

For a 39‑year‑old employee with 17 years of service whose position had been replaced by automation, the court fixed reasonable notice at 14 months.

Because the motion was decided before the expiry of the notice period, the court addressed the treatment of mitigation and adopted the “trust and accounting” approach, requiring the employee to account for any mitigation income earned during the remaining notice period.

The employee’s mitigation efforts to date were found to be reasonable.