Alexandra Monkhouse

At a case conference in a certified class action, the parties discussed scheduling upcoming motions.

The plaintiff sought to amend the Statement of Claim to add unjust enrichment, which the defendants opposed as it could impact the certification analysis.

The defendants proposed a motion to decertify the action due to a low number of class members.

The court scheduled the decertification motion for April 2023 and directed the plaintiff to defer their motion to amend until after the decertification motion is decided.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes, approve a $105,000 settlement, and approve class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The class action alleged that the defendants misclassified event staffing workers as independent contractors rather than employees, depriving them of minimum employment standards.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, finding the criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable given the significant risk of non-recovery due to the corporate defendant ceasing operations.

Class counsel fees of $50,454.50 plus disbursements were approved, and the representative plaintiff was awarded a $4,000 honorarium.

Plaintiff's counsel moved to remove themselves as counsel of record due to a breakdown in relations with their client, Gregory Stokker, who had settled his individual claim in a proposed class action through separate counsel and became incommunicative.

The court granted the motion, allowing counsel to withdraw.

The plaintiff was ordered to be served directly with the endorsement and any future materials, and given 30 days to communicate his plans for the claim or retain new counsel, failing which the defendant would be at liberty to bring further motions.

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.

This case conference addressed three issues in a class action: the plaintiff's counsel's use of the defendants' corporate logo, the opt-out deadline for class members, and the defendants' communications with class members.

The court directed the plaintiff's counsel to cease using the logo to avoid confusion, set a revised opt-out deadline of April 3, 2022, and found no evidence of misconduct in the defendants' communications, noting that a high opt-out rate was foreseeable due to the nature of the claim.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action alleging that insurance sales agents, known as 'producers', were misclassified by the defendants as independent contractors rather than employees.

The defendants opposed certification, arguing that the proposed class lacked commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the current arrangement financially benefited most producers.

The court found that the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting that the core issue of misclassification was common to the class and that a class action was preferable to individual claims or Ministry of Labour complaints.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The plaintiffs, former employees who received variable compensation, brought a proposed class action against their former employer for unpaid vacation and public holiday pay.

The employer admitted to miscalculating the pay and made remedial payments for the two years prior to discovery, but relied on the Limitations Act to deny older claims.

The plaintiffs moved for certification and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding limitation periods and releases.

The court also dismissed the certification motion, concluding that while the first three criteria were met, a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because individual issues trials regarding limitation periods and releases were inevitable and would not be advanced by a common issues trial.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for the next steps in the proceeding.

Two of the three defendants were in default, and the remaining defendant was self-represented.

The court set a timetable for affidavits of documents, discoveries, and a pre-trial, and directed that another judge conduct the pre-trial.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action regarding employee misclassification brought a motion to substitute herself with a new representative plaintiff.

The defendant opposed, arguing the new plaintiff's claim was statute-barred and her interests were misaligned with the class because she recently sought work with the defendant as an independent contractor.

The court granted the substitution, finding the new plaintiff had a tenable claim because discoverability of Employment Standards Act entitlements may be delayed when an employer represents a worker as an independent contractor.

The court also found her recent job search did not preclude her from adequately representing the class.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action alleging misclassification of salespersons and sales managers as independent contractors, which resulted in the denial of Employment Standards Act entitlements and Canada Pension Plan/Employment Insurance contributions.

The parties largely consented to certification, with the court approving the class definition and common issues, though excluding punitive damages due to a lack of factual basis.

The court also approved a revised litigation plan.

The defendants, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company, sought to schedule a motion to stay an individual action and remove plaintiff's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, prior to the certification motion for a proposed class action.

The plaintiff, Kabir Singh, opposed this scheduling, arguing these issues should be determined at the certification hearing.

The court, applying section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found that hearing the conflict and stay issues before certification would ensure a fair and expeditious determination, preventing potential delays and issues with adequacy of representation if a conflict were found later.

The court ordered the defendants' motion to be heard before the certification motion.

The defendants, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company, brought a motion to strike various paragraphs from the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim, alleging no reasonable cause of action or insufficient particulars.

The plaintiff claimed constructive dismissal, misrepresentation, Human Rights Code violations, and malicious investigation.

The court struck paragraphs related to malicious investigation, misrepresentation, Human Rights Code violations, and negligent infliction of mental suffering, but granted leave to amend for all.

Allegations of common employer and certain paragraphs pleading evidence were allowed to remain.

The court emphasized that pleadings define the scope of discovery and that leave to amend should generally be granted at this stage.

The defendants, Aviva General Insurance Company and RBC Insurance Agency Ltd., sought directions to schedule Aviva General's proposed summary judgment motion before the certification hearing in a class action.

The plaintiff, Kabir Singh, opposed this sequencing request.

The court dismissed the defendants' request, finding that the summary judgment motion would not dispose of the entire proceeding, would require a full evidentiary record, and would likely lead to delays, increased costs, and potential interlocutory appeals, thus not promoting judicial efficiency or settlement.

The plaintiff sought costs of a class action certification motion on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing they 'beat' a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court noted that the offer was non-monetary and the parties had settled most issues prior to the hearing.

The court held that a settlement is not a victory and awarding costs for negotiating a settlement would disincentivize resolution.

Exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court declined to award costs to either party.

In a certified class action regarding whether document reviewers were employees or independent contractors, the plaintiff moved for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The court reviewed 11 categories of requested documents.

The court ordered the production of the defendant's insurance policy under Rule 30.02(3), but dismissed the remaining requests, noting that a party has no obligation to create documents that do not exist, and that requests for privileged communications and judicial inspection were premature or improper.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding the alleged misclassification of non-managerial sales representatives as independent contractors rather than employees.

The parties consented to certification but disputed whether the class should be divided into two subclasses (lead generators and appointment bookers) and whether a second representative plaintiff was required.

The court certified the class action, divided the class into two subclasses for efficiency, and held that the single plaintiff could represent both subclasses as there was no actual conflict of interest.

Following the successful dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the plaintiff sought damages under s. 137.1(9) and full indemnity costs under s. 137.1(7).

The court dismissed the claim for damages, finding no evidence that the counterclaim was brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

The court awarded costs of $95,173.26, noting that while full indemnity costs are presumptive, the awarded amount was fair and proportionate given that the main action was continuing and some work would be useful in that proceeding.

The applicant, Medha Joshi, brought a motion under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act) to dismiss a $700,000 counterclaim by Allstate Insurance Company of Canada.

Joshi's initial claim was for wrongful dismissal, alleging discriminatory insurance practices by Allstate against residents of Brampton, primarily visible minorities, which she had publicly discussed.

The court found that Joshi's expressions related to a matter of public interest.

Allstate failed to satisfy the court that its counterclaim had substantial merit or that Joshi had no valid defence, particularly regarding the absence of malice for malicious falsehood and the availability of absolute, qualified, and fair comment privileges for defamation.

Allstate also failed to demonstrate sufficiently serious harm.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and Allstate's counterclaim was dismissed as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

The plaintiffs, two long-term senior employees, brought a motion for default judgment against their former employer for wrongful dismissal, unpaid overtime, and moral damages.

The defendant had been noted in default.

The court found the plaintiffs were constructively dismissed due to a deliberate course of harassing and demeaning conduct, including unilateral salary reductions and attempts to force them to quit.

The court awarded 24 months' notice for wrongful dismissal, unpaid overtime to one plaintiff, and $15,000 each in moral damages.

Partial indemnity costs were also awarded to the plaintiffs.