Hugh Christie

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain their former employee, the defendant, from competing, soliciting clients or employees, and using confidential information.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as their allegations were based on suspicion rather than clear evidence.

The balance of convenience also heavily favoured the defendant.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of $40,000.

Following a successful summary judgment motion by the plaintiffs in a wrongful dismissal action, the court addressed costs.

One defendant sought costs against the other defendant rather than the plaintiffs, arguing that the other party’s litigation position caused its involvement in the action.

The court rejected that position and held that no costs would be awarded for or against that defendant.

The court found the remaining defendant liable for the plaintiffs’ costs and determined that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate due to the defendant’s unfounded and strategic allegation of termination for cause, which unnecessarily complicated and lengthened the proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking pay in lieu of reasonable notice following termination of a consulting relationship related to the establishment of a Schedule 1 bank.

The defendant bank argued the individual plaintiff was never its employee but rather a consultant engaged through a consulting company.

The court held that, at minimum, the consultant functioned as a dependent contractor given his exclusive work for the bank, integration into its operations, and representation to regulators as a senior officer.

Applying principles from employment law regarding reasonable notice, the court determined that eight months’ notice was appropriate.

Summary judgment was granted awarding consulting fees equivalent to eight months’ compensation plus HST and contractual interest.

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against the defendant for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The defendant argued that investment advisors were exempt from overtime provisions due to their managerial character or because their compensation provided a greater benefit.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against his former employer for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer argued that investment advisors fall within the managerial or greater benefit exemptions.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.