Alexandra Monkhouse

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding the respondent made reasonable efforts to mitigate, alleging she fabricated records of online job applications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to meet its onus to prove a failure to mitigate or fabrication of evidence.

The court also upheld the motion judge's determination that summary judgment was appropriate.

The proposed representative plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company for alleged failure to pay vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation to Property & Casualty Insurance Advisors.

The court granted certification against RBC IA, finding some basis in fact for the claims and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court found the proposed representative plaintiff's claim against Aviva General was presumptively statute-barred and conditionally certified the action against Aviva General, allowing 100 days to find a new representative plaintiff.

This class action, alleging employee misclassification and breaches of provincial employment standards, settled for $2.4 million after almost eight years of litigation.

The court approved the settlement amount, class counsel's legal fees, payment to the Class Proceedings Fund, and the distribution method.

The representative plaintiff's requested honorarium of $20,000 was reduced to $8,000, as his involvement, while excellent, was not deemed "truly extraordinary" but did involve some personal and financial hardship.

The class period was also extended for settlement purposes.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, alleging the employer breached the Employment Standards Act by failing to include certain bonus payments in the calculation of vacation and public holiday pay.

The court found that the 'some basis in fact' requirement was met only for Business Development Agents regarding the Agency Performance Bonus, as there was evidence it was not wholly discretionary and related to individual production.

The motion for certification was granted but strictly limited to this subclass and bonus type.

The plaintiff and the defendant Tofield Pizza Hut consented to a motion to remove Tofield Pizza Hut from a proposed employment misclassification class action.

The plaintiff accepted that Tofield Pizza Hut did not misclassify its delivery drivers as independent contractors.

The court granted the motion, finding that the dismissal would not prejudice the prospective class as no putative class member had a viable claim against this specific defendant.

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 appellants, former employees of Medcan, appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation.

The certification judge had found that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the certification judge erred in principle by failing to conduct the preferability analysis through the lens of the three principal goals of class actions, specifically failing to consider barriers to access to justice and behaviour modification.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

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 moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $20,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

Prior to the motion, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle, resolving all issues except costs.

The court issued an endorsement setting a timetable for written costs submissions and remained seized of the matter.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule dates for discovery and mediation after the defendant delayed proceedings due to internal HR turnover.

The court established a litigation timetable, ordering examinations for discovery to be completed by January 14, 2022, and mediation by February 4, 2022.

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 respondent, an actor, sued her union (ACTRA) and its rights society in Small Claims Court, alleging they miscalculated and underpaid her royalties (Use Fees) for a movie performance.

The union brought a motion to strike the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose from a collective agreement.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the interpretation, application, and administration of the collective agreement and the union's duty of fair representation.

Therefore, the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board or a labour arbitrator.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the responding party only submitted a brief letter in response.

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.