The defendants brought a motion to determine the sequencing of their proposed summary judgment motion and the plaintiff's certification motion in a class action.
The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of s. 4.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which governs pre-certification motions.
The court followed the precedent set in Dufault v. Toronto Dominion Bank, affirming a presumptive right for preliminary motions that can dispose of or narrow issues to be heard before certification.
The court found that the defendants' proposed summary judgment motion raised genuinely arguable issues concerning limitation periods and the legality of their "negative vacation bank" policy under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which could narrow the litigation.
Consequently, the court ordered the summary judgment motion to proceed prior to the certification motion.
