Andrew J. Eckart

In a certified class proceeding involving claims for unpaid wages and vacation pay, the representative plaintiffs sought partial default judgment against a defendant who had been noted in default.

The claims arose under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and included statutory claims and damages for negligence, inducing breach of contract, and oppression relating to unpaid wages, vacation pay, termination pay, and severance pay.

The court held that, by virtue of the default, the defendant was deemed to admit the allegations in the amended statement of claim.

Based on the deemed admissions and evidentiary record, the court concluded the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against the defaulting defendant.

The precise terms of the judgment and certification order were to be settled at a case conference.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action for wrongful dismissal brought a motion seeking particulars of the allegations in the defendants' Statement of Defence and Crossclaim.

The plaintiffs argued the particulars were necessary to deliver a reply and to prepare for the upcoming certification motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs did not need the particulars to plead a reply, as they were not proposing a different version of facts.

Furthermore, the court held that particulars should not be used as a substitute for discovery, and the plaintiffs would have ample opportunity to understand the defendants' case through the normal certification motion procedures.

In a certified class action arising from a fire and explosion in an underground electrical vault at a residential complex, the defendant utility appealed a Master’s order compelling answers to refusals given during examinations for discovery.

The appeal concerned whether the defendant was required to disclose details of internal and expert investigations and to answer questions regarding its theory of causation.

The court held that the defendant failed to establish a factual basis for litigation privilege over investigative information and expert findings.

The court further held that under Rule 31.06(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must disclose expert findings, opinions, and conclusions at discovery unless it undertakes not to call the expert at trial.

The Master’s order requiring answers to discovery questions and disclosure of investigative information was upheld.