Antidormi v. Blue Pumpkin Software Inc.,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Sanderson, J.
• Citation: [2004] O.T.C. 827 (SC)
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Date: 22 September 2004

Antidormi v. Blue Pumpkin Software, [2004] O.T.C. 827 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] O.T.C. TBEd. SE.063

Melissa Antidormi (plaintiff) v. Blue Pumpkin Software Inc. (defendant)

(Court File No. 03-CV-243189CM2)

Indexed As: Antidormi v. Blue Pumpkin Software Inc.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Sanderson, J.

September 22, 2004.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Master and Servant - Topic 7704

Dismissal of employees - Damages for wrongful dismissal - Measure of damages for wrongful dismissal - See paragraphs 158 to 172.

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - What constitutes reasonable notice - See paragraphs 140 to 157.

Master and Servant - Topic 8003

- Dismissal without cause - Notice of dismissal - Reasonable notice - Considerations affecting (incl. bad faith) - See paragraphs 140 to 157.

Cases Noticed:

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 140].

Marshall v. Watson Wyatt & Co. (2002), 155 O.A.C. 103; 57 O.R.(3d) 813 (C.A.), consd. [para. 141].

McIntosh v. C.T.F. Supply Ltd., [2001] O.T.C. 945 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 142].

Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 147].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 148].

Gismondi v. Toronto (City) (2003), 171 O.A.C. 1; 24 C.C.E.L.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].

Counsel:

Natalie C. MacDonald, for the plaintiff;

John Patrick Brown and Kierstan Taylor, for the defendant.

This matter was heard on June 7 to 11, 2004, by Sanderson, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who delivered the following decision on September 22, 2004.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.