Daria Chyc

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against a car rental company, alleging systemic misclassification of branch managers and seeking unpaid overtime.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues regarding misclassification could not be resolved on a class-wide basis due to significant variability in the actual job functions performed by managers across different branch locations.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's proposed methodologies for calculating aggregate damages, which relied on computer log-in data and anonymous crowdsourced internet reviews.

The defendant brought a motion to amend its statement of defence to add a counterclaim against the plaintiff.

The proposed counterclaim alleged intentional interference with economic relations and inducing breach of contract, based solely on the plaintiff's commencement of the underlying action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed counterclaim was legally untenable because commencing a lawsuit does not constitute an unlawful act and the defence of justification would apply to the inducing breach of contract claim.

The parties agreed upon a timetable leading up to a certification motion in a class proceeding.

The court endorsed the agreed-upon schedule, setting dates for the exchange of motion records, cross-examinations, and factums, with the motion returnable for three days in May and June 2022.

The plaintiff, a 51-year-old dental receptionist with 17 years of service, was terminated without cause and brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The defendant argued that the notice period and mitigation efforts were contentious issues requiring a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding credibility or facts.

The court awarded a 12-month notice period, finding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts reasonable overall, though slightly deficient during a 3-month period of temporary employment.

Damages of $22,084 and costs of $24,162.79 were awarded to the plaintiff.