Employment and Labour Law

The plaintiffs brought an urgent ex parte motion for an Anton Piller Order and related injunctive relief against a former independent contractor.

The contractor allegedly manipulated invoices, and upon being suspended, launched a cyber attack that shut down the plaintiffs' systems, deleted sensitive data, and caused significant financial damage.

The contractor also allegedly engaged in a campaign of defamation, doxing, and death threats against the plaintiffs' personnel.

The court found the evidence justified the rare remedy of an Anton Piller Order without notice to prevent the destruction of evidence.

The plaintiff former employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant former employee from working for a competitor and from using confidential information.

The defendant had previously downloaded files before resigning but had returned them pursuant to an earlier interim order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the defendant had conveyed confidential information to his new employer or that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The court also noted the new employer was not a direct competitor in the same market.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Uber on behalf of drivers and delivery people, alleging they are employees misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to benefits under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Uber opposed certification, arguing the relationship is idiosyncratic and relying on a new Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Clause.

The court certified the action for breach of contract and ESA claims, finding some basis in fact for common issues regarding employment status based on the standard form contracts and app functionality.

The court declined to strike down the arbitration clause at this stage, ordering that class members be given notice of its potential legal significance.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction against its former Chief Technology Officer and a competitor, seeking the return or destruction of alleged confidential information.

The competitor brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it.

The court dismissed the injunction motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the order, largely due to a 22-month delay in pursuing the motion.

The court also dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the competitor's knowing involvement and the causation of the plaintiff's loss of a major client.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for production of the defendant's financial records, alleging the defendant fabricated cause for termination as a cost-saving measure during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for production of the plaintiff's employment insurance records to respond to her claim of financial distress.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding the financial records were not relevant to proving the defendant's alleged bad faith agenda.

The court granted the defendant's cross-motion, holding that because the plaintiff put her financial pressure in issue, her income sources, including employment insurance, were relevant.

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 plaintiff sought default judgment against nine persons in an action for constructive dismissal.

However, only the Crown was named in the title of proceeding, and the plaintiff had not complied with the notice requirements under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The court adjourned the motion, directing the plaintiff to consider whether the parties were properly named and requiring her to serve any future default judgment motion materials on the defendants.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action against Uber sought court approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Augusta.

The proposed class action alleges that Uber breached employment contracts and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court reviewed the four-factor test for approving third-party funding agreements, noting that the agreement was necessary for access to justice, fair and reasonable, and did not overcompensate the funder.

The court approved the litigation funding agreement.

The plaintiff, a former real estate agent for the defendant brokerage, brought a motion for an order under Rule 45.02 or an injunction requiring the defendant to set aside commission funds from transactions he closed.

The plaintiff also sought to strike the Statement of Defence or demand particulars.

The court denied the injunction but granted the Rule 45.02 order, finding the plaintiff had a right to a specific fund of commissions.

The defendant was ordered to provide an accounting, pay existing held funds into court, and set aside 12.5% of gross commissions on an ongoing basis.

The defendant was also ordered to provide particulars.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal against a group of corporate defendants.

The court found that the defendants operated as a common employer and that the plaintiff's employment contract was for an indefinite term, despite ambiguous language regarding a three-year 'timeout'.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the plaintiff eight months' reasonable notice, along with accrued vacation pay and the value of his equity units.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of the unredacted financial statements of the corporate defendant for the years 2015 to 2017.

The plaintiff alleged the individual defendant breached a non-compete clause and sought disgorgement of benefits received by the corporate defendant.

A previous order allowed the corporate defendant to redact non-relevant information from the financial statements.

After reviewing the unredacted statements pursuant to Rule 30.06(d), the Master concluded that the redacted information was not relevant to the disgorgement claim, as the statements only provided a general high-level overview without the specific details sought by the plaintiff.

The motion for production of the unredacted statements was dismissed.

The court heard three motions arising from two related actions involving a former employee and his employer.

The employer moved to strike portions of the employee's constructive dismissal claim and for summary judgment on an outstanding employee loan, while the employee moved for the appointment of a case management judge.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but ordered them sealed, referred the matter for case management, and granted summary judgment for the loan balance of $45,119.05, with enforcement stayed pending the outcome of the constructive dismissal action.

The self-represented applicant, a paramedic, brought an application seeking a declaration that the Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act, 2001 unjustifiably violates section 2(d) of the Charter by requiring ambulance workers to provide essential services during a strike.

The applicant argued that the legislation's purpose was unconstitutional on its face and therefore no evidentiary record of its effects was required.

The court dismissed the application, holding that a factual foundation demonstrating the legislation's deleterious effects on collective bargaining is essential, and its absence was fatal to the Charter challenge.

The plaintiff commenced an action and brought a motion for an interim injunction to prevent the defendant from imposing a trusteeship on a local union.

The plaintiff subsequently abandoned the motion and the litigation after the trusteeship was imposed and she joined a rival union.

The defendant sought costs of the abandoned motion pursuant to Rule 37.09(3).

The court found no good reason to depart from the general rule that a responding party is entitled to costs of an abandoned motion, and awarded the defendant $30,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against her former employer, claiming wrongful dismissal and breach of her employment contract.

The core issue was whether her contract automatically renewed for an additional year because the employer failed to provide a 30-day notice of non-renewal prior to the end of the initial three-year term.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, interpreting the contract to mean it had automatically renewed.

The court awarded the plaintiff her base salary and performance bonus for the remainder of the initial term plus the one-year renewal period, but denied her claims for health insurance stipends and office expenses.

The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, was employed by the defendant's dental practice for 19 years.

During her employment, the employer restructured its business entities and required the plaintiff to sign three successive employment contracts, each attempting to limit her termination entitlements to the minimums under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Upon her termination without cause, the plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal.

The court held that the plaintiff's employment was continuous despite the corporate restructuring and that the employment contracts were unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration.

The court awarded the plaintiff 15 months' reasonable notice at common law, less amounts mitigated.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause following an incident involving a female co-worker.

The co-worker moved for leave to intervene in the action under Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to protect her moral and physical integrity, arguing that the plaintiff's version of events and cross-examination tactics threatened her reputation in the workplace.

The court granted the motion, finding that the co-worker had a legitimate interest in protecting her integrity and that her limited participation through counsel would not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of transition loans totaling over $1.8 million made to the defendant financial advisor.

The defendant argued the repayment terms were unenforceable because they were provided after the business relationship commenced and lacked consideration, and that the relationship was actually employer-employee.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial given the late delivery of the repayment schedule and the potential inconsistency with the defendant's pending counterclaim.