Timothy Lee

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Arista Homes Limited's appeal from a summary judgment awarding Ellen De Castro eight months’ salary in lieu of notice following her dismissal without cause.

The court upheld the motion judge’s finding that the employment contract’s for-cause termination clause was unenforceable because it contravened the Employment Standards Act, 2000 by permitting termination without notice in circumstances broader than the statute allows.

The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the ESA and the interpretive principle that ambiguities in employment contracts are to be resolved in favour of employees.

In a highly acrimonious family law dispute, the court held a focused hearing to address the respondent father's claim to set aside several temporary separation agreements and arbitration awards, and the applicant mother's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to provide court-ordered disclosure.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding no evidence of duress, unconscionability, or unfairness in the negotiation of the agreements or the arbitration process.

Conversely, the court granted the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings, finding that he willfully breached multiple disclosure orders and engaged in egregious litigation conduct, including dissipating assets to render himself judgment-proof.

The respondent was granted 60 days to fully comply with the disclosure orders before the matter could proceed as an uncontested trial.

The plaintiff, Ellen De Castro, brought a motion for summary judgment in an employment matter against Arista Homes Limited.

The defendant opposed, arguing that cross-examinations were not permitted in simplified procedures, the employment contract limited notice to statutory severance, and the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court rejected all defendant's arguments, finding that cross-examinations were permitted by court order, the termination provisions in the contract were unenforceable as they provided less than the statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act, and the defendant failed to prove inadequate mitigation, especially given the plaintiff's personal circumstances (daughter's cancer and death) and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court awarded the plaintiff 8 months' salary in lieu of notice, plus 10% for lost benefits and a prorated bonus, totaling $57,620.85.