Court of Appeal backs employee notice rights in building services contract swap

A Toronto employment firm won a Court of Appeal ruling that makes an incoming building services provider responsible for common-law notice when it decides not to keep an employee. The decision could affect workers across condominiums, hotels and office buildings when contracts change hands.

Why it matters: - The ruling gives Toronto building services workers clearer protection when property management contracts switch from one provider to another. - The Court confirmed that an incoming provider can owe more than statutory minimums, including common law reasonable notice. - The decision resolves a legal gap that had left employees unsure which company would pay when neither provider kept the worker.

What happened: - Lecker & Associates defended Gazmend Kondaj in Kondaj v. Crossbridge Condominium Services Ltd., 2026 ONCA 636 (CV-24-00716430). - Kondaj worked as a building manager at the SoHo Hotel & Residences in Toronto. - Crossbridge Condominium Services Ltd. employed Kondaj before the property management contract moved to Duka Property Management Inc. - Duka chose not to continue Kondaj’s employment, and Crossbridge did not place him at another property. - Duka paid three weeks of statutory termination pay and briefly continued benefits, but neither company paid common law reasonable notice. - Kondaj sued both companies for wrongful dismissal. - The Superior Court ordered Duka to pay $78,925 based on 10 months of reasonable notice. - The Court of Appeal dismissed Duka’s appeal, upheld the costs award to Kondaj and dismissed Crossbridge’s cross-appeal.

The details: - The Court held that sections 56 and 75 of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 must be read together. - When an incoming building services provider declines to employ an affected worker, the legislation treats the new provider as having terminated that employee. - That legal consequence applies to statutory termination and severance pay, and also to common law reasonable notice. - Kondaj had offered to settle with both companies for $27,600 before the Superior Court hearing. - Both companies rejected the offer. - The court later ordered Duka to pay $56,321.46 toward Kondaj’s legal costs. - Lecker & Associates lawyers Kimberley Sebag and Ian Hurley represented Kondaj. - Sebag argued the summary judgment motion in the Superior Court. - Hurley defended the judgment at the Court of Appeal. - Sebag said the decision protects employees whose jobs are affected by changes in building services providers.

Between the lines: - The ruling is important because service-provider turnover is common in Toronto condominiums, office buildings, hotels and similar properties. - Before this case, no appellate court had directly decided who owes common law notice when a new building services provider declines to keep the worker. - The decision strengthens the policy goal of preserving employment continuity in an industry where contracts often change hands. - The case also signals that statutory termination pay may not fully resolve an employee’s claim after a transfer.

What's next: - Employees who lose work after a building services contract changes hands may have claims for more than severance minimums. - The size of a common law notice award will still depend on factors such as age, length of service, position, compensation and the availability of comparable work. - Lecker & Associates is urging affected workers to get legal advice before signing a release or accepting a severance package. - The firm offers a severance calculator and no-charge initial assessment for employees with potential wrongful dismissal or severance claims.

The bottom line: - The Court of Appeal has made clear that an incoming building services provider can be on the hook for an employee’s common law notice when it chooses not to keep that worker on.