Eric R. Hoaken

On a certification motion in a proposed overtime class action against a federally regulated trucking employer, the court held that the claim was not framed as a misclassification case requiring individualized overtime entitlement determinations, but as a systemic challenge to the employer’s overtime policies, practices, and record-keeping.

Applying the s. 5(1)(c) commonality requirement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court found some basis in fact for most proposed common issues, including contractual incorporation of overtime obligations, alleged systemic avoidance of overtime, good faith duties, negligence-based record-keeping duties, unjust enrichment, the effect of an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, class-wide liability, aggregate damages, and punitive damages.

The court refused to certify issues that depended on individual proof of actual overtime entitlement or that were too broad or unnecessary.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from selling an independent medical examinations business to a competitor.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant breached a contractual duty of good faith by failing to negotiate a sale with them and by not offering a right to match the competitor's offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as the defendant had fulfilled its limited obligation to offer a first right of negotiation and was not required to provide a right to match.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

Following the dismissal of a proposed class proceeding and the granting of summary judgment in favour of the defendant, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of over $321,000, while the plaintiffs argued that a substantially lower award was appropriate and invoked s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, asserting the action raised a novel legal issue.

The court held that although the case contained some novel aspects, it was primarily a private financial dispute and not a public interest test case warranting a reduction of costs.

Applying the principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed whether the claimed costs were fair and reasonable.

The court concluded that the defendant’s claimed costs exceeded what the unsuccessful plaintiffs could reasonably be expected to pay and fixed costs at $200,000 all inclusive.

The proposed representative plaintiffs sought certification of a class action alleging that fellows at a teaching hospital were contractually entitled to receive fellowship stipends on a tax‑free basis and that the defendant payroll management entity breached the employment contracts by later withholding income tax without grossing up compensation.

The defendant opposed certification and brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the action.

The court held that although the defendant could be considered an employer within a common‑employer structure, there was no express, implied, or collateral contractual term guaranteeing tax‑free fellowship payments.

Because the alleged promise of tax‑free compensation could not be established and damages claims were untenable, the individual claims failed.

Certification was also denied because the key issues were individualized and the proposed plaintiffs were not adequate representatives.

In a proposed national class proceeding alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the market for DRAM semiconductor devices, the representative plaintiffs sought approval of four additional settlement agreements with certain defendants and approval of class counsel fees.

The court assessed whether the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Although no finalized distribution protocol for settlement funds had yet been developed, the court concluded the settlements—totaling $23.325 million and including cooperation provisions—were reasonable given litigation risk and the benefit of cooperation against non‑settling defendants.

The court also scrutinized class counsel’s request for a 30% contingency fee of approximately $7.13 million.

Finding that percentage excessive at this stage of the proceedings, the court reduced the fee award to 20% of total settlements achieved to date and approved an interim fee of $4,180,345.59.

The appellant sold his minority interest in two businesses and entered into agreements containing non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality covenants.

The duration of the non-competition and non-solicitation covenants was tied to the period he held an indirect interest in the businesses, which could only be disposed of with the consent of third-party lenders and the board.

The Court of Appeal held that the duration of these covenants was unreasonable and unenforceable because it depended on the unpredictable consents of unascertainable third parties, creating an indeterminate period with no fixed outside limit.

The confidentiality provision, however, was upheld as reasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Expedia Inc. and Expedia Canada Corporation, alleging that the defendants wrongfully charged hidden service fees and undisclosed profits on hotel bookings.

The court certified the action against Expedia Inc. for breach of contract, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, and a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

However, the court declined to certify claims under the Consumer Protection Act and Competition Act, and dismissed all claims against Expedia Canada Corporation as it was not a contracting party.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify two actions as class proceedings for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 in relation to alleged price-fixing of DRAM (dynamic random access memory) devices.

The actions alleged breach of Part IV of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with economic interests against numerous international semiconductor manufacturers.

Following earlier settlement with one defendant, additional settlements were reached with several defendants totaling substantial monetary payments and cooperation commitments.

The court held that the criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and approved certification for settlement purposes.

The court further determined that no additional opt‑out period was required because class members had already been provided a valid opportunity to opt out during the earlier settlement process.

Following certification of a national class proceeding and dismissal of defendants’ summary judgment motions, the court determined costs arising from the certification and related motions.

The court applied Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles governing costs in class proceedings, including fairness, reasonable expectations of the parties, and the access to justice objectives of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The litigation involved extensive evidence, numerous defendants, and complex factual and legal issues affecting approximately 10,000 class members with alleged losses approaching $150 million.

The court rejected requests for substantial indemnity costs and declined to refer costs to formal assessment, instead fixing costs directly.

Significant partial indemnity costs and disbursements were awarded to the plaintiff, apportioned among the defendant groups.

The applicant sought a declaration that non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements he signed with the respondents were unenforceable as an illegal restraint of trade.

The court found that the covenants were connected to a commercial sale transaction rather than just an employment contract, and therefore subject to a less rigorous standard of reasonableness.

The court concluded that the covenants were unambiguous, protected a legitimate business interest, and were reasonable in their scope, territory, and duration.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants and proposed defendants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's ruling on a Rule 21 motion, an order certifying the proceeding as a class proceeding, and an order granting the plaintiffs leave to commence an action under the Securities Act.

The court granted leave to appeal the Rule 21 motion in relation to the pleadings of negligence and negligent misrepresentation, noting that two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions created a correctness and conflict issue.

Consequently, leave to appeal the certification order was also granted.

Furthermore, the court granted the proposed defendants leave to appeal the order allowing proceedings against them under the Securities Act, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's determination that they were de facto officers of the Income Fund.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the promoters, lawyers, and other entities involved in a charitable donation tax shelter scheme called the Donations for Canada Gift Program.

The Canada Revenue Agency had disallowed the charitable tax credits claimed by the participants, finding they lacked donative intent.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action in negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that a trial was required to fully appreciate the evidence and resolve the complex factual issues, including whether the contracts were vitiated by fraud.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board under the Independent Health Facilities Act.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by asking itself the wrong question, limiting its consideration to whether the Director had the authority to revoke the appellant's licence rather than whether the revocation was a reasonable exercise of discretion.

The court rescinded the Board's decision and remitted the matter back for a re-hearing, noting that the Board's process is a hearing where it may substitute its own opinion for that of the Director.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for falsifying a record and contravening a condition of his certificate of registration.

The Committee had imposed a penalty that included a reprimand, an ethics course, and a requirement to appoint an independent quality advisor for his diagnostic imaging clinics.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of professional misconduct, concluding it was reasonable based on the evidence that the appellant attached another physician's electronic signature to a quality advisor agreement without authorization.

However, the Court found the penalty requiring an independent quality advisor was unreasonable as it was not rationally connected to the misconduct found, and varied the penalty to remove that condition.

The plaintiff sued a doctor and an assessment company for bad faith, intentional interference with economic relations, and negligence arising from an independent medical examination report that led to the termination of her statutory accident benefits.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the report was protected by witness immunity and absolute privilege, and that they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the scope of the duty of care in the context of the statutory scheme and whether immunity applied to allegations of intentional injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the plaintiff's claims raised important policy issues and genuine issues of fact that required a full trial.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for an anti-suit injunction and staying their counterclaims in Ontario pending the resolution of parallel proceedings in Delaware and Illinois.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The motion judge correctly applied the Amchem test and concluded that the foreign forums were more appropriate, noting that the jurisdiction clause in the parties' agreement was not exclusive.

The applicant, a medical director, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board requiring him to attend before the Complaints Committee to be cautioned about using unqualified practitioners for Independent Medical Examinations.

The applicant argued a lack of procedural fairness and that the decision was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procedural fairness issues were not raised before the Board and that the Board had an evidentiary basis for its conclusions.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motions judge's order dismissing an application for judgment in accordance with minutes of settlement reached at mandatory mediation.

The settlement required the execution of a license agreement, but the parties could not agree on whether it should include an indemnification provision.

The motions judge found the settlement unenforceable as there was no agreement on essential terms.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and that a decision would be of significant benefit to the profession.

The applicant coalition sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying them standing at an inquest into the death of a psychiatric patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the coroner made no serious error in principle in applying the tests for direct interest and public interest standing.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that they were denied procedural fairness by not receiving the coroner's full brief prior to the standing hearing.