Jeffrey E. Goodman

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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The court found the employment agreement's termination clause to be unclear and incomplete, thus entitling the plaintiff to common law reasonable notice.

The court awarded 22 months' notice, determining the plaintiff held a senior executive role.

It also ruled that the Ontario Employment Standards Act applied to the calculation of lost benefits, despite the plaintiff working in California, due to an Ontario choice-of-law clause in the agreement, rejecting the defendant's public policy argument.

The valuation of lost benefits was deferred for further resolution, and mitigation income was partially offset by $30,000 USD.

The defendant, SPS Commerce Canada Ltd., brought a motion to strike paragraphs 33 to 40 of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, arguing they contained without prejudice settlement discussions protected by settlement privilege.

The plaintiff, Tricia Clayton, opposed the motion, distinguishing between settlement discussions regarding a severance package and communications related to the employer's statutory duty to investigate harassment allegations and a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

The court found that the three conditions for settlement privilege were not met for the communications concerning the investigation and PIP, as these were factual and part of the employer's statutory obligations, not attempts to effect a settlement.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

A family-owned meat processing business went bankrupt, terminating approximately 800 employees.

Two representative actions were commenced: one by Sam Caetano for unionized employees and another by Debbie and Alex Abreu for non-unionized employees, alleging wrongful dismissal, common employment, conspiracy, and oppression against solvent related companies and individuals.

The defendants brought motions to stay the Caetano action for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss both representative actions as time-barred.

The court granted the jurisdiction motion, staying the Caetano action entirely, finding that claims by unionized employees under a collective agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour tribunals.

The court also granted in part the limitations motion, dismissing the Caetano representative action as time-barred because the required Rule 12.08 representation order was not obtained prior to commencement.

However, the Abreu representative action, brought under Rule 10.01, was found not to be time-barred, but was allowed to proceed only on the condition that the plaintiffs forthwith obtain a representation order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a proposed settlement in a certified class action regarding a mass termination without notice or severance pay.

The employer had gone bankrupt, leaving the plaintiffs to pursue the directors and officers and their liability insurance policy.

After complex litigation and negotiations regarding the depletion of the insurance policy, a settlement was reached for approximately $1.77 million.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, providing significant recovery where there was high risk of none.

The court also approved class counsel's fee request of one-third of the settlement amount, noting the high risk undertaken and the excellent result achieved.