Jonathan Ptak

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.

Invesco sought leave to appeal orders sanctioning a Plan of Compromise and Reorganization under the CCAA and approving a settlement that released Ernst & Young LLP from claims arising from its auditing of Sino-Forest Corporation.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals failed to meet the stringent test for leave in CCAA proceedings.

The appeal of the Sanction Order was moot, and the issues regarding the third-party release in the Settlement Order were governed by the court's prior decision in ATB Financial.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to compel the representative plaintiff to answer discovery questions regarding class members' tax and income information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the questions were speculative, disproportionate, and premature given that the methodology for calculating damages had not yet been determined.

The appellants appealed a decision denying certification of a proposed class proceeding against CIBC and CIBC World Markets for alleged misclassification of employees making them ineligible for overtime.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that despite an amended class definition, the issue of eligibility for overtime for Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors required individual, case-by-case determinations regarding their managerial or supervisory functions.

The appellants failed to establish a basis in fact that the job functions were sufficiently similar to be resolved as a common issue.

In a certified class proceeding concerning the partial wind-up of a supplemental retirement plan, the defendant insurer brought a refusals motion seeking production of income information, tax assessments, and projected retirement income from the representative plaintiff and certain subclass members.

The defendant argued the information was necessary for its actuarial expert to quantify potential damages.

The court held that the requested information related to individual damage quantification rather than the certified common issues, which were limited to liability and the methodology for calculating damages.

Because the trial judge had not yet determined the methodology for assessing damages or whether aggregate damages could be assessed, ordering production was premature.

The court also held that obtaining information from absent class members would require leave under s. 15 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The motion was dismissed.

The Ontario Plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $117 million settlement and release of claims against Ernst & Young LLP within the CCAA restructuring of Sino-Forest Corporation.

Several institutional investors objected, arguing that the settlement improperly extinguished their opt-out rights under the Class Proceedings Act and that the third-party release was not justified under the CCAA.

The court approved the settlement and release, finding them fair, reasonable, and rationally related to the restructuring plan.

The court held that claims compromised within a CCAA proceeding do not afford opt-out rights, and the settlement provided a substantial benefit to stakeholders.

Employees sought certification of a class action alleging that a bank misclassified analysts, investment advisors, and associate investment advisors as ineligible for overtime pay contrary to the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The proposed class relied on job titles and levels to establish commonality, arguing that eligibility for overtime could be determined collectively or through statistical sampling.

The court held that determining whether an employee exercised managerial or supervisory functions required a fact‑specific assessment of the actual duties performed by each employee.

Evidence showed wide variation in responsibilities even among employees sharing identical job titles, defeating the proposed common issues and rendering statistical sampling inappropriate for determining liability.

As the central issues of overtime eligibility and breach required individualized inquiries, a class proceeding was not a preferable procedure and the certification motion was dismissed.

In a proposed overtime misclassification class action against a financial institution and its affiliate, the plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and undertakings arising from cross‑examinations on affidavits filed for an upcoming certification motion.

The court balanced the need for a full evidentiary record against the proximity of the certification hearing and the burden of additional production.

Requests for a third‑party inspection of the defendants’ human resources system and certain historical records were refused as disproportionate or unnecessary at the certification stage.

However, several questions concerning the duties of investment advisors, associate investment advisors, and the rationale for overtime eligibility policies were ordered answered because they related to class definition and commonality issues.

Other questions relating to merits issues, irrelevant job descriptions, or hypothetical inquiries were not compelled.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an appeal.

The court awarded the respondents costs in the total amount of $60,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, to be divided $35,000 to the respondent corporation and $25,000 to the individual respondents.

The appellants were notified by public health authorities of potential exposure to tuberculosis at the respondent hospital.

Although none tested positive, they brought a class action claiming damages for psychological harm caused by the notification.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims because the appellants did not suffer a recognizable psychiatric illness.

On appeal, the appellants argued that the Supreme Court of Canada in Mustapha eliminated the recognizable psychiatric illness threshold.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Mustapha did not change the law and that a recognizable psychiatric illness remains the threshold for compensable psychological injury in negligence.

The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order that reopened a dismissed class action certification motion to allow the plaintiffs to file fresh expert evidence.

The motion judge had previously dismissed the certification motion because the plaintiffs' expert evidence was inadmissible.

The motion judge then allowed the motion to be reopened, finding that the strict test for fresh evidence from Sagaz did not apply to procedural motions under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and conflicting decisions regarding the application of the principle of finality to procedural orders.

Following the disposition of four appeals, the Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the appeal and the underlying proceedings.

The appellant was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, with the respondents ordered to pay a portion on a partial indemnity basis and the remainder to be paid from the Fund.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $75,000, and the costs of the underlying Rule 10 and Rule 21 motions at $135,000.

The plaintiff, a member of the OMERS pension plan, brought an action on behalf of plan members against the OMERS Board, two corporations, and three former OMERS employees, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt of trust property, knowing assistance, and unjust enrichment arising from the outsourcing of real estate management.

The defendants successfully moved to strike several claims under Rule 21.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while some breach of fiduciary duty claims were properly struck, the claims for knowing receipt, knowing assistance, and unjust enrichment should be allowed to proceed against all defendants.

The Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs from the pension fund on a full indemnity basis, as the action was brought to ensure the due administration of the fund and for the benefit of all beneficiaries.