Jeffrey E. Goodman

The plaintiff sought access to documents seized pursuant to an Anton Piller Order executed six months prior.

The defendants opposed, arguing the Order did not explicitly permit access and that review was premature.

The court found that the terms of the Order contemplated access by the Independent Supervising Solicitor (ISS) to identify and inspect records.

Given the passage of time and the discovery stage of the proceeding, the court directed the ISS to inspect the seized material and produce relevant records to the parties, noting the ISS provides protection against disclosure of irrelevant or privileged material.

The defendant was successful in its motion to dismiss the proposed class action for delay pursuant to s. 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and sought costs of $42,792.31 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued that their counsel was inexperienced in class actions and unaware of the new limitation period.

The court held that it was not the defendant's responsibility to advise the plaintiffs of time limitations.

The court awarded the defendant costs of $40,000, slightly reducing the requested amount to reflect that success was based on a strict time limitation rather than the merits.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to dismiss a proposed national employment class action for delay.

The plaintiffs commenced the action in 2018 seeking pay in lieu of notice and outstanding vacation pay on behalf of the defendant's employees across multiple provinces.

The plaintiffs failed to take any of the required steps toward certification by the October 1, 2021 deadline.

Although the parties engaged in settlement discussions from 2018 to January 2025, no settlement agreement was concluded due to an impasse over the distribution protocol.

The court found no meeting of the minds and rejected the plaintiffs' estoppel argument.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Associate Justice Eckler dated September 26, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify a class action against a temporary help agency for alleged employee misclassification.

The motion judge had found that the proposed common issues regarding whether the agency was an employer under the Employment Standards Act or at common law lacked sufficient commonality and required individual determinations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no systemic commonality among the putative class members' arrangements.

Leave to appeal the costs award of $333,114.05 was also denied.

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.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of a class action certification motion.

The defendant, T.E.S. Contract Services Inc. (TES), sought substantial or partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Ann Davidson, argued for no costs or significantly reduced costs, asserting the case was a test case, raised novel issues, or concerned public interest.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, finding no egregious conduct by the plaintiff.

It rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding public interest, novel issues, or test case status, and strongly criticized the suggestion that the representative plaintiff might be personally exposed to costs, emphasizing class counsel's duty to indemnify.

The court found TES's requested partial indemnity costs reasonable but deducted amounts related to the plaintiff's successful production motion and the defendant's abandoned motion to strike expert reports.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perell J. dated February 29, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,500.

The plaintiff, Ann Davidson, brought a motion for certification of a proposed class action against T.E.S. Contract Services Inc. (TES), alleging misclassification of workers as independent contractors instead of employees, and seeking benefits under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding no basis in fact for commonality regarding whether a s. 74.3 agreement (temporary help agency assignment) existed between TES and the putative class members, or whether a common law or s. 1(1) employment relationship could be determined on a class-wide basis.

The court concluded that individual inquiries would be required to determine employment status for each class member, as the evidence did not establish systemic commonality.

This decision concerns the costs of a prior motion in an employment class action.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to settle a Discovery Plan, and the Defendants brought a cross-motion to amend certified common issues.

The court granted the Defendants' motion and dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion.

The Defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, while the Plaintiffs argued for costs in the cause or partial indemnity.

The court awarded the Defendants $29,930.58 on a partial indemnity basis, finding that while the Plaintiffs' proposed discovery plan was "outrageous, abusive, and unfair" their conduct in seeking it was not.

The court also considered that the process of developing the discovery plan, despite the Plaintiffs losing the motion, ultimately benefited them by leading to admissions that could avoid an onerous common issues trial.

In a certified class action regarding unpaid vacation and public holiday pay, the plaintiffs moved to settle a discovery plan, and the defendants brought a cross-motion to amend the certified common issues and approve an alternative discovery plan.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding their proposed discovery plan to be disproportionate, unnecessary, and abusive, as it sought extensive electronic searches and oral discovery beyond the scope of the common issues.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, approving their revised common issues and their more proportionate discovery plan.

In a class action regarding unpaid vacation and public holiday pay, the plaintiffs moved to settle a discovery plan, and the defendants brought a cross-motion to amend the certified common issues and approve an alternative discovery plan.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding their proposed discovery plan to be disproportionate, unnecessary, and overly broad.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, amending the common issues to reflect the actual scope of the claims and approving the defendants' more focused discovery plan.

In a class action regarding unpaid vacation and public holiday pay, the plaintiffs moved to settle a discovery plan, and the defendants brought a cross-motion to amend the certified common issues and approve an alternative discovery plan.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding their proposed discovery plan to be disproportionate, unnecessary, and abusive.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, amending the common issues to reflect the actual scope of the action and approving the defendants' more proportionate discovery plan.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs following a successful appeal by the Plaintiffs in a certified class action.

The Plaintiffs sought substantial costs for both the certification motion and the appeal.

The court, applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found the Plaintiffs' requested costs for the certification motion to be excessive, particularly regarding the hours billed, given the motion's complexity.

While the appeal costs were undisputed, the court significantly reduced the certification motion costs, emphasizing that awards must reflect the fair and reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful litigant.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike a paragraph in the plaintiff's statement of claim that referenced a settlement offer made at the time of termination.

The plaintiff alleged the offer was abusive and warranted punitive damages because it withheld Employment Standards Act entitlements unless a release was signed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pleading raised a valid claim for punitive damages with an air of reality, as the offer could be construed as containing a threat.

The appellants, former employees of Medcan, appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation.

The certification judge had found that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the certification judge erred in principle by failing to conduct the preferability analysis through the lens of the three principal goals of class actions, specifically failing to consider barriers to access to justice and behaviour modification.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

Plaintiff's counsel moved to remove themselves as counsel of record due to a breakdown in relations with their client, Gregory Stokker, who had settled his individual claim in a proposed class action through separate counsel and became incommunicative.

The court granted the motion, allowing counsel to withdraw.

The plaintiff was ordered to be served directly with the endorsement and any future materials, and given 30 days to communicate his plans for the claim or retain new counsel, failing which the defendant would be at liberty to bring further motions.

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 plaintiff in a proposed class action regarding employee misclassification brought a motion to substitute herself with a new representative plaintiff.

The defendant opposed, arguing the new plaintiff's claim was statute-barred and her interests were misaligned with the class because she recently sought work with the defendant as an independent contractor.

The court granted the substitution, finding the new plaintiff had a tenable claim because discoverability of Employment Standards Act entitlements may be delayed when an employer represents a worker as an independent contractor.

The court also found her recent job search did not preclude her from adequately representing the class.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action for want of jurisdiction, the defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiff argued she should not pay costs because she had offered to discontinue the action and the defendants demanded an overly broad release.

The court awarded the Toronto Parking Authority $20,000 in partial indemnity costs.

However, the court declined to award costs to the individual defendant, finding that doing so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given his reprehensible conduct that gave rise to the action.