Ian Wilson

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid overtime wages against his former employers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings that the appellant failed to establish a cause of action against one defendant, failed to show the existence of two or more class members, failed to provide a litigation plan, and that preferable procedures such as small claims actions or employment standards complaints were available.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the defendants should have been ordered to produce lists of class members, as the appellant had not pursued this request prior to the certification motion.

The plaintiff, a 65-year-old general manager, was terminated without cause or notice after five years of employment when the defendant corporation was shut down.

The defendant abandoned its defence at trial.

The court awarded nine months' notice, equivalent to $48,749.94.

The court declined to deduct the plaintiff's post-termination earnings from inferior positions, finding he was forced to accept them to mitigate his damages.

The court also awarded $7,500 in exemplary damages due to the defendant's bad faith conduct in blackening the plaintiff's character in the community.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the defendants for alleged unpaid overtime wages, arguing that the defendants misapplied a road building exemption to employees working at permanent asphalt facilities.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary burden under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

Specifically, the plaintiff provided no evidence of any other employee in the same circumstances, failed to establish common issues that would not require highly individualized assessments, and failed to demonstrate that a class action was the preferable procedure compared to Small Claims Court or Employment Standards Act remedies.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to produce a workable litigation plan.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

One respondent also requested dismissal of the termination allegation under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing it was dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal refused the s. 45.1 request because the ESA claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and did not deal with the substance of the allegations.

The Tribunal also refused the requests for a summary hearing and deferred the issue of delay to the hearing on the merits.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by considering irrelevant prejudicial evidence regarding his criminal charges and failing to recognize the employer's duty to inquire about his medical situation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as he was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to show the decision was based on irrelevant considerations or conflicted with established case law.

In a proposed employment class proceeding, the plaintiff moved to amend an already amended statement of claim to broaden the proposed class definition and extend the proposed class period.

The court held that the class definition amendment was permissible under Rule 26.01 because it clarified the location-based nature of the claim and did not amount to an abuse of process.

However, the attempt to extend the class period from July 8, 2008 back to September 4, 2001 was refused because the original pleading acknowledged a two-year limitation period and no evidence was adduced to rebut presumed discovery under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

Prejudice to the defendants was inferred from the expiry of the limitation period.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by delaying the payment of general damages and failing to provide an original tax receipt for a charitable donation made in her name.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement by failing to make the payment directly to the applicant until four and a half months after it was due.

Applying the factors from Saunders, the Tribunal awarded the applicant $2,500 in damages for the breach, considering the delay, the need to incur further legal expenses, and the resulting anxiety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment.

During the hearing process, the applicant was taken into custody and requested an indefinite abeyance of the proceedings pending his release.

The respondents opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application for delay, arguing prejudice to their right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss the application, finding no breach of natural justice or actual prejudice established at this stage.

The Tribunal granted a three-month abeyance, directing the applicant to provide updates on his custody status and ability to attend, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested that his physician be permitted to testify by teleconference at the hearing, citing travel distance and the financial impact of missing a day of practice.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that the physician's evidence was central to the case and that in-person testimony was necessary to properly examine the witness on extensive medical documentation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that given the extensive and key nature of the proposed evidence and the need to review detailed medical documents, it would be impractical and inappropriate to conduct the examination by teleconference.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondents failed to accommodate his absence and terminated his employment.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an order to exclude the respondents' proposed evidence relating to his criminal charges and police custody, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the proposed evidence of police officers regarding the applicant's whereabouts and ability to communicate appeared relevant to the issues in dispute, and that the admissibility of documentary evidence would be best determined during the hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated.

The applicant had previously taken medical leaves but had returned to full-time work without requesting further accommodation.

The respondent terminated the applicant for cause after discovering he had made unauthorized loans to subordinate employees using company equipment, violating multiple workplace policies.

The Tribunal applied the social model of disability and found the applicant did not have an actual disability at the time of termination, nor did the respondent perceive him to have one.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the Toronto Police Services Board and others.

The motion judge had found that the plaintiff failed to show any bad faith, mala fides, or recklessness on the part of the Commissioner or his investigator, and dismissed the action on the merits.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding this dispositive of the appeal, and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $3,000.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the responding party union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant complained about events from 1997 and 1998, including the combination of her job with another position, lack of forklift training, and her subsequent retirement.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for undue delay and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the application on the ground of undue delay, finding the 19-month delay to be prejudicial and inadequately explained.

The Board also noted that, even if not dismissed for delay, the application would be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, as the applicant never requested the union to file a grievance or take specific action.