Charles Sinclair

The court approved a class action settlement concerning unpaid hours and overtime for non-managerial, non-unionized employees of GoodLife Fitness Centres Inc. The settlement, reached after mediation, provides $7.5 million to approximately 22,000 class members across various employment categories, along with $1 million in class counsel fees and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court certified the class action for settlement purposes and found the settlement fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the benefits secured for the class, including compensation without individual proof of damages.

The plaintiff, a former elected Vice President of the union, brought an action against the union alleging unlawful dismissal from his position and seeking reinstatement and damages.

The defendant union brought a motion to dismiss the action under Rule 21.01(3)(a), arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute was an internal union disciplinary matter governed by the Canada Labour Code, which provides an exclusive adjudication process through the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

The action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Lawyers (Evan L. Tingley and Baldwin Sennecke Halman LLP) were successful in their motion to strike out the Statement of Claim and dismiss the action against them.

They sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale ($7,412.33) or, alternatively, partial indemnity ($5,244.12).

The court found the plaintiff's allegations of breach of trust against the Lawyers lacked factual foundation and were vexatious.

However, considering the plaintiff was represented by an agent, not counsel, and the agent had a good faith basis for some allegations, substantial indemnity costs were deemed inappropriate.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,000, all inclusive, payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.

The Lawyers' request for personal costs against the plaintiff's agent, J. Brad Maher, for prejudicing or delaying the action was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of significant prejudice or delay.

Following a motion in which the defendants successfully obtained a stay of the civil action pending determination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving parties sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, arguing they were entirely successful and had proceeded on an expedited timeline at the insistence of the responding parties.

The responding parties argued the amounts claimed exceeded reasonable expectations and that substantial indemnity costs were inappropriate because the motion concerned jurisdiction and did not determine substantive rights.

Applying the principles under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that successful parties are generally entitled to costs but that the amount must be fair and reasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to each group of moving parties.

Unionized masonry contractors commenced a civil action alleging that employer associations and construction unions conspired to prevent them from using independent operator payment arrangements with bricklayers through amendments to provincial collective agreements.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that the collective agreements and memorandum of agreement were unlawful, injunctive relief, and damages for economic torts.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Applying the framework from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned labour relations issues including the validity and scope of collective agreements and the relationship between employers and unionized workers.

Because those matters fall within the OLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, the court stayed the action and declined to consider the requested injunctive relief.

An experienced private mortgage lender advanced $100,000 secured by a first mortgage in a property transaction that proved to be fraudulent.

The borrower admitted participating in the fraud but died without assets.

The central issue at trial was whether the solicitor who acted for both borrower and lender or the mortgage broker was responsible for orchestrating the scheme.

The court accepted corroborated evidence that the solicitor was the architect and principal beneficiary of the fraud, drawing adverse inferences from his failure to testify and from suspicious documents in his file.

Judgment was granted for the lender for her losses with prejudgment interest and punitive damages, and the third‑party claim against the broker was dismissed.

Following a successful wrongful dismissal trial in which the plaintiff recovered damages exceeding a pre-trial offer to settle, the court was asked to determine costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant conceded the entitlement but challenged the hourly rates, time spent on trial preparation, and certain disbursements including a computer research charge.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs and the guidance in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court adjusted the partial indemnity hourly rate but accepted the hours claimed and the disbursements.

The court fixed total costs, including taxes and disbursements, as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The trustee of a deceased lawyer’s estate brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a third party negligence claim arising from mortgage transactions handled by the deceased solicitor.

The estate argued the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act, which governs tort claims by or against estates.

The responding party argued that the limitation period should be tolled due to fraudulent concealment or, alternatively, special circumstances.

The court held that while a solicitor‑client relationship constituted a special relationship, the evidence demonstrated negligence rather than unconscionable conduct required to establish fraudulent concealment.

The doctrine of special circumstances could not be used to commence a new claim after expiry of the limitation period, and the third party claim against the estate was dismissed.

Multiple motions arose in more than 45 construction lien actions concerning five related solar farm projects across Eastern Ontario.

The plaintiff sought transfer and consolidation of numerous lien actions, while the general contractor sought reduction of security posted to vacate liens under the Construction Lien Act.

The court declined full consolidation, instead designating “main actions” for each project and implementing procedural directions to coordinate litigation efficiently while avoiding administrative burdens associated with transferring and merging dozens of proceedings.

The court partially granted the motion to reduce security where duplicate or inflated lien claims were conceded, while adjourning the balance pending further negotiations and analysis of holdback exposure and overlapping claims.

The plaintiffs brought an action alleging they were victims of an advance fee loan scam perpetrated by the main defendant with the assistance of several lawyers and law firms.

Three groups of defendant lawyers brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court struck the negligence claims against one lawyer and his firm, finding opposing counsel owes no duty of care to the opposite party.

The court struck the claims against two other law firms but allowed the fraud claim against their partner to proceed, subject to the plaintiffs providing better particulars.

Finally, the court dismissed the claim against a third lawyer, finding it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the alleged misconduct more than two years before commencing the action.