William D. Anderson

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages arising from termination of employment without cause.

The appellant was employed for over 19 years and received 8 weeks' notice and severance pay consistent with statutory minimums.

The key issues were whether a termination clause must expressly state it displaces common law notice rights, whether the clause violated the Employment Standards Act by failing to reference severance pay, and whether the clause entitled the appellant to 19 weeks' notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the termination clause clearly displaced common law rights without requiring express language, did not violate the ESA, and entitled the appellant to 19 weeks' notice (one week per year of service), resulting in an award of compensation for an additional 11 weeks plus interest.

An employer appealed a summary judgment awarding an employee 18 months reasonable notice at common law for wrongful termination.

The motion judge found that the employer breached the termination clause in the employment agreement by failing to consider the employee's years of service, position, and age when fashioning the termination package, thereby repudiating the entire employment agreement.

The Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment, finding that the motion judge decided the case on a legal theory of liability that was neither pleaded nor advanced by the employee, denying the employer the opportunity to lead responsive evidence and compromising hearing fairness.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different judge.

The plaintiff, Joseph Nemeth, sought summary judgment in an employment termination case against Hatch Ltd. Nemeth argued that the termination clause in his employment contract was ambiguous and attempted to contract out of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, particularly regarding severance and benefits, thus entitling him to common law reasonable notice.

The court, following its prior decision in Cook v. Hatch Ltd., found the termination clause unambiguous and compliant with the Act, rejecting the argument that silence on severance and benefits constituted an attempt to contract out.

The court also distinguished Singh v. Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd., which had found ambiguity in a similar clause.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted to the defendant, dismissing the action.

The plaintiff, Paul Holmes, brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract against Hatch Ltd. after 17 years of employment.

The core issue was the enforceability and interpretation of a termination provision in his employment contract, which stated that the termination package would "take into account your years of service, position and age" as a minimum, or such greater amount as required by statute.

The court found that Hatch Ltd. failed to provide sufficient credible evidence that it genuinely considered these common law factors when determining the termination package, instead relying solely on its interpretation of "contractual obligations" to provide only ESA minimums.

This failure constituted a fundamental breach and repudiation of the employment agreement, rendering the termination clause invalid.

Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to common law reasonable notice, which the court determined to be 18 months.

Partial summary judgment was granted, declaring this entitlement, with the calculation of specific damages and mitigation issues to be addressed in future proceedings.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the termination clause in his employment contract was void for failing to explicitly reference severance pay and benefits, and for ambiguously referring to 'applicable labour legislation'.

The court held that the termination clause was valid and enforceable.

It found that the clause did not attempt to contract out of the Employment Standards Act minimums, and that silence regarding severance and benefits did not invalidate the clause.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant employer, and the action was dismissed.