Eleanor A. Vaughan

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and questions taken under advisement from the examination for discovery of the defendants’ representative.

The court considered the scope of discovery in a class action, focusing on whether the questions related to certified common issues.

The court ordered answers to certain questions and refusals to others, based on relevance and proportionality to the common issues.

No costs were awarded, as both parties had almost equal success.

The applicant unions sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondent employers from enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies pending the outcome of labour arbitrations.

The court dismissed the Sinai application on the basis that the labour arbitration process provided an adequate alternative remedy, precluding the exercise of the court's residual jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the TTC application on the merits of the injunction test, finding that the loss of employment or income did not constitute irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the employer's obligation to protect public health and workplace safety.

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.

The applicant and three respondents sought a declaration that the respondent 2180366 Ontario Limited (218) failed to properly exercise a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) contained in a Partnership Agreement, which would permit the sale of shares from Parmantid Inc. to the applicant. 218 contended its exercise of the ROFR was unequivocal despite reserving certain rights.

The court found 218's exercise of the ROFR valid, determining that the reservation of rights was not a renegotiation of the purchase price but merely notice of a potential future entitlement, such as claims for unjust enrichment or set-off related to undisclosed liabilities.

Consequently, the Share Purchase Agreement between the applicant and the vendors became null and void.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to 218 against the applicant and the other respondents.