Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc.
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 272
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 16 April 2026
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 16 April 2026
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that absent admissible evidence from the customer the employer failed to prove a culminating incident and thus had no just cause; the employer also failed to prove availability of comparable employment so the employee did not fail to mitigate; however earnings received during the notice period must be deducted from the damages award, reducing the award by the agreed amount earned during that period.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; damages reduced by deduction of earnings during notice period; otherwise appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal allowed in part to reduce damages by $32,881.43 by deducting earnings the respondent received during the notice period.
- Appeal otherwise dismissed.
- Respondent awarded costs of $15,000, all inclusive.
02
Material facts
Parties
William Williamson
Plaintiff (respondent) Counsel: David Vaughan; Naomi FlanaganBrandt Tractor Ltd.
Defendant (appellant) Counsel: Luis SarabiaAmounts and remedies
- Deduction for Earnings During Notice Period: CAD 32,881.43
- Costs Awarded to Respondent: CAD 15,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether employer had just cause to dismiss based on a culminating incident
- 02
Whether the employee failed to mitigate by not seeking comparable employment
- 03
Whether earnings from a lower‑paid position during the notice period must be deducted from damages
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the evidentiary threshold for establishing a culminating incident and thus erred in finding no just cause; the appellant argued the respondent failed to mitigate by not seeking comparable sales employment and that earnings during the notice period should reduce damages.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued the customer complaint lacked admissible evidence so no culminating incident was established; the respondent argued the appellant failed to show comparable employment was available so there was no mitigation failure; the respondent argued earnings from an inferior position should not preclude full damages.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Ltd., 2026 ONCA 272
An employer must adduce admissible evidence of the final incident to establish a culminating incident constituting just cause.
- 02
Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Ltd., 2026 ONCA 272
The employer bears the burden to show comparable employment was available to defeat or reduce notice damages on mitigation grounds.
- 03
Brake v. PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc., 2017 ONCA 402 (majority)
Employment income earned during the notice period is generally to be treated as mitigation of loss and deducted from damages.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that absent admissible evidence from the customer the employer failed to prove a culminating incident and thus had no just cause; the employer also failed to prove availability of comparable employment so the employee did not fail to mitigate; however earnings received during the notice period must be deducted from the damages award, reducing the award by the agreed amount earned during that period.
Obiter and limits
- The trial judge relied on a passage from a concurring opinion in Brake which is not binding law in Ontario.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; damages reduced by deduction of earnings during notice period; otherwise appeal dismissed.
- Appeal allowed in part to reduce damages by $32,881.43 by deducting earnings the respondent received during the notice period.
- Appeal otherwise dismissed.
- Respondent awarded costs of $15,000, all inclusive.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 16 April 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 16 April 2026
Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-04-16 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 272 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0802 Judges Huscroft, Grant; George, Jonathon C.; Wilson, Darla A. Subject Civil Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc., 2026 ONCA 272 DATE: 20260416 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0802 Huscroft, George and Wilson JJ.A.
BETWEEN William Williamson Plaintiff (Respondent) and Brandt Tractor Ltd. Defendant (Appellant) Luis Sarabia, for the appellant David Vaughan and Naomi Flanagan, for the respondent Heard: April 8, 2026 On appeal from the judgment of Justice R. Lee Akazaki of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 1, 2025, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 2571.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant, Brandt Tractor Ltd., appeals from a judgment awarding the respondent, William Williamson, damages for wrongful dismissal. The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in concluding that it did not have just cause to dismiss the respondent and erred in finding that the respondent mitigated properly. [2] The appeal is allowed in part for the reasons that follow. The trial judge did not err in concluding that the appellant did not have just cause [3] The appellant accepts that the trial judge stated the law properly, but argues that he misapplied the evidentiary threshold required to establish the final incident as a culminating event that established just cause to dismiss the respondent. [4] We disagree. [5] The trial judge accepted that a complaint had been made about the respondent by a customer. However, in the absence of admissible evidence from the customer as to what had occurred, the appellant failed to establish a culminating incident so as to justify dismissal based on the respondent’s work history. The appellant has not established that the trial judge made an extricable legal error or a palpable and overriding error. His decision is entitled to deference. The respondent did not fail to mitigate [6] The appellant argues that the respondent failed to mitigate because he admitted that he did not seek a comparable job in sales. We
do not agree. The appellant’s burden was to establish not only that the respondent failed to pursue comparable employment, but also that such employment was available – that if reasonable steps had been taken, the respondent would have secured a comparable position. The appellant failed to establish that comparable employment was available. The respondent’s choice not to seek employment in the sales field did not relieve the appellant of its burden in this regard. The trial judge erred in failing to deduct money earned in mitigation [7] The trial judge erred by refusing to deduct money the respondent earned during the notice period because he earned it in a “lower-paying or ranking position”. There is no authority for the proposition that earnings that come from an inferior position are not deductible in mitigation. The passage in Brake v. PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc., 2017 ONCA 402, 135 O.R. (3d) 561, at paras. 157-58, cited by the trial judge comes from a concurring opinion and does not state the law in Ontario. The law is as stated by the majority in Brake at para. 99: Subject to additional circumstances not relevant in this case, “employment income earned during the notice period is generally to be treated as mitigation of loss”. [8] Thus, money earned by the respondent in his new job had to be deducted from the 17 months’ pay in lieu of notice to which the respondent was entitled. The parties agree that the respondent earned $32,881.43 from his new job during the notice period. Accordingly, this amount must be deducted from the damages awarded for the notice period. Disposition [9] The appeal is allowed to the limited extent of reducing the damages awarded, as set out in para.
8. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. [10] The respondent was largely successful on the appeal and is entitled to costs of $15,000, all inclusive. “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “J. George J.A.” “D.A. Wilson J.A.”
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.