Wrongful Dismissal Case Win: Court of Appeal Upholds $78,925 and Sets Precedent for Building Services Employees
Lecker & Associates is proud to announce a successful result for our client, Gazmend Kondaj, in Kondaj v. Crossbridge Condominium Services Ltd., 2026 ONCA 636, released September 10, 2026.
Mr. Kondaj lost his job when the building services contract at his workplace moved to a new provider and that provider decided not to keep him on. Both companies agreed he was owed common law reasonable notice. Each said the other was responsible for paying it. Neither did.
The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the incoming employer was responsible after deciding not to continue Mr. Kondaj’s employment. He was awarded $78,925.
The decision sets an important precedent for building services employees. No court had previously decided which employer pays an employee’s common law notice when one building services provider replaces another, and the ruling now binds every court in Ontario.
Lecker & Associates secured this result for Mr. Kondaj. Kimberley Sebag obtained the original judgment, and Ian Hurley successfully defended it on appeal.
What Happened in Kondaj v. Crossbridge?
Mr. Kondaj began working for Crossbridge Condominium Services Ltd. in June 2020, and in January 2023 was assigned as building manager at the SoHo Hotel & Residences Shared Facilities in Toronto.
When SoHo retendered its property management contract, it awarded the contract to Duka Property Management Inc., which replaced Crossbridge as the service provider effective December 1, 2023. Duka decided not to continue Mr. Kondaj’s employment. Crossbridge, on the same day, advised that it would not be assigning him to another property.
Duka paid Mr. Kondaj $4,967.31 in statutory termination pay, representing three weeks, enrolled him in its benefit plan for the same three weeks, and issued him a T4 naming Duka as his employer. He received nothing more. Neither company paid his common law notice entitlements, and each maintained that the other was responsible.
Mr. Kondaj brought a wrongful dismissal claim against both companies.
Lecker & Associates Successfully Defends the Result on Appeal
Represented by Lecker & Associates, Mr. Kondaj brought a motion asking the court to decide his claim without requiring a full trial. There was no dispute that he was entitled to common law notice. The question was whether the outgoing or incoming employer was responsible for paying it. As the motion judge noted, no court had addressed the question before.
The court concluded that Duka, as the incoming provider, was responsible. Mr. Kondaj was awarded $78,925, representing 10 months of common law notice, together with damages in lieu of lost benefits.
Duka appealed the decision, arguing that it should only be responsible for Mr. Kondaj’s minimum termination and severance entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, not his common law notice.
Ian Hurley represented Mr. Kondaj before the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court rejected Duka’s argument and upheld the judgment, describing the motion judge’s reasons as sound, thoughtful and correct.
The Court found that sections 56 and 75 of the ESA must be read together. When Duka declined to continue Mr. Kondaj’s employment, it was treated as having terminated him. Because section 75 requires the incoming provider to comply with Part XV of the ESA, which includes section 56, Duka’s obligations included his common law notice entitlements, not only the ESA minimums.
Before the original decision, Mr. Kondaj had offered to settle for $27,600. Both companies rejected the offer, and Mr. Kondaj ultimately received a substantially better result. On the motion, Duka was ordered to pay $56,321.46 toward his legal costs, the majority of it on a substantial indemnity basis, and the Court of Appeal upheld that order. The motion judge had found it was “absolutely clear-cut” that Mr. Kondaj was entitled to damages, yet he was “held hostage” to a dispute between the two companies. The Court of Appeal also awarded Mr. Kondaj his costs of the appeal, on a partial indemnity basis.
What This Decision Means for Building Services Employees in Ontario
Contracts in the building services industry frequently change hands. Employees may continue working at the same location even though the company that employs them has changed.
Section 75 of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 addresses what happens when one building services provider replaces another. If the incoming provider does not continue an eligible employee’s employment, it may be treated as though it terminated that employee.
Until this decision, no court had answered the question of who pays an employee’s common law notice in that situation, which is how Mr. Kondaj ended up caught between two companies who each pointed at the other. The Court of Appeal has now settled it. The incoming employer’s obligations may extend beyond the ESA minimums, and depending on the employee’s contract and circumstances, that employer may also be responsible for common law reasonable notice. Every court in Ontario is bound to follow that ruling, so the next employee in Mr. Kondaj’s position has an answer he did not have.
If a new building services provider takes over your workplace, keep in mind that:
- a dispute between the outgoing and incoming employers should not prevent you from pursuing your entitlements
- declining to continue your employment can trigger termination obligations
- your service with the previous employer may remain relevant
- statutory termination pay may not represent everything you are owed
Whether these protections apply will depend on the type of services being provided, how the employer changed and the employee’s individual circumstances.
When a new building services provider takes over and does not retain you, your termination entitlements may substantially exceed statutory minimums.
Speak With an Ontario Employment Lawyer
A change in contractor or service provider can create uncertainty about whether your employment will continue and who is responsible if it does not.
If you were not retained by an incoming employer, use our severance calculator to get a general estimate of what you may be entitled to receive.
How Lecker & Associates Can Help
Lecker & Associates advises employees across Ontario on termination packages, wrongful dismissal claims and severance negotiations, including employees in building services whose employer changed when a contract was retendered. If you were let go because an incoming provider chose not to keep you on, early legal review can help determine whether your termination entitlements were properly calculated, whether any termination clause in your contract is enforceable, and whether what you were paid reflects everything you are owed.
Our team of Toronto employment lawyers can be reached at 416-223-5391 or intake@leckerslaw.com for a confidential consultation.
Book a no-charge initial assessment with Lecker & Associates today.
FAQs: Building Services & Wrongful Dismissal
Wrongful dismissal generally occurs when an employer terminates a non-unionized employee without providing the notice or compensation required by the employment contract or common law.
It depends on factors such as your contract, age, length of service, position and ability to find comparable work. Use our severance calculator for a general estimate.
If the incoming provider does not continue your employment, it may be responsible for your statutory and common law termination entitlements.
In some circumstances, yes. Your service with the previous employer may remain relevant when your termination entitlements are calculated.
Testimonials from Employees Like You
Breathe Easy, We’ve Got This
Book a confidential interview with our trained intake staff. If you have an urgent matter, please call our Ontario employment law firm at 416-223-5391 or message us via the chat button (bottom right), and our team will contact you as soon as possible.
Book a Consultation
We’ll Contact You to Confirm
Reputation Matters
Top-Rated
Toronto Employment Lawyers
Our cases and commentary feature prominently in national media, promoting workplace fairness
