Mitigation, Credibility and Deductions: A Case Comment on Ryan v....
In Ryan v. Curlew, 2018 NLSC 72, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador assessed damages in the context of a personal injury claim.
In Ryan v. Curlew, 2018 NLSC 72, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador assessed damages in the context of a personal injury claim.
Local and global data breaches remain headline news. From Facebook’s disclosure of its sharing of millions of users’ profiles (without their consent) to the recent data breach involving the Nova Scotia government’s Internal Services website, awareness is growing about privacy rights, how people share data, and how personal information is protected.
Contrary to the perception that lawyers thrive in loopholes, when a dispute arises, the concepts of fair and reasonable are consistent. It is on that basis that most parties are able to work through disputes without commencing litigation.
From the employer’s perspective, one of the most beneficial terms in an employment contract is a prescribed notice period in the event of a “without cause” termination.
Under the common law, an employee who is terminated without cause is entitled to reasonable notice of termination, or pay in lieu thereof. That entitlement is not free of conditions.
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court, McLeod v 1274458 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONSC 4073, confirms that working notice does not apply where an employee is unable to work due to a medical leave of absence.
In the decision of Douthwright v. Duffy, 2015 NBQB 224, the 43 year old Douthwright was injured in a serious roll-over accident. Liability was admitted, but the parties differed on damages.
In recent years, there have been many decisions on the enforceability and interpretation of termination clauses in employment contracts – which employers and their legal counsel read with both interest and apprehension.
An employee in Ontario was awarded bonus payments for the applicable reasonable notice period following a without cause termination despite the bonus plan’s express terms that personal and company objectives must be met and the employee must be actively employed.
A new decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal shows the potential downside of fixed term employment contracts for employers and the importance of proper drafting.