Joshua Ross Mandryk

The plaintiff, a pizza delivery driver, brought a proposed class action against the franchisor and 141 franchisees alleging misclassification as an independent contractor.

Both the plaintiff and the franchisee defendants appealed the certification judge's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, upholding the finding that the franchisees were not 'common employers' under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court granted the franchisees' appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred in certifying a conspiracy claim among all defendants because the pleadings only alleged the franchisor controlled the agreements, not that the franchisees conspired with each other.

The certification of employment status as a common issue and the negligence claim were upheld.

The plaintiff and the franchisee defendants brought motions for leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated December 17, 2024.

The Divisional Court granted both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motions were fixed at $5,000 each and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision striking a one-day suspension given to a union representative for unprofessional conduct during and after a termination meeting.

The employer argued the arbitration was procedurally unfair and the arbitrator applied the wrong legal test.

The Divisional Court found that while the arbitrator's refusal to hear a preliminary objection regarding evidence admissibility breached procedural fairness, the outcome of a new hearing would inevitably be the same.

The arbitrator had accepted the employer's evidence regarding the conduct but correctly applied the legal test protecting union representatives from discipline unless their conduct is malicious, knowingly false, or intimidating.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This decision concerns the approval of a $30 million settlement in a class action alleging that major junior hockey players were employees entitled to minimum wage and other benefits.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the high litigation risks and uncertain legal landscape.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fees but declined to approve honoraria for the representative plaintiffs, reiterating that such awards should be rare and reserved for exceptional contributions.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The plaintiff and the defendant Tofield Pizza Hut consented to a motion to remove Tofield Pizza Hut from a proposed employment misclassification class action.

The plaintiff accepted that Tofield Pizza Hut did not misclassify its delivery drivers as independent contractors.

The court granted the motion, finding that the dismissal would not prejudice the prospective class as no putative class member had a viable claim against this specific defendant.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the layoff of a foreman.

The Board had determined that the employer violated the collective agreement by laying off the foreman without regard to seniority rights.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court found that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision overturning the transfer of an employee who had previously been disciplined for assaulting a co-worker.

The hospital argued the transfer was an administrative decision to protect the complainant under the Occupational Health & Safety Act.

The arbitrator found the transfer constituted a second penalty for the same offence, violating the principle of double jeopardy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and properly balanced the competing values of workplace safety and protection against double jeopardy.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the defendant employer for unpaid overtime, initially claiming $100 million.

The parties reached a pre-certification settlement of $7 million, which included a new time-tracking system.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes and approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the adjusted actual loss, comparable settlements, and the significant litigation risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on the travel industry.

The court also approved a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff due to retaliatory employment consequences, and approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee.

The court held a case management teleconference to set an expedited schedule for an application for judicial review.

The court established deadlines for the application records and factums, and scheduled the hearing for December 3, 2020.

The court also encouraged the parties to agree on interim terms to avoid the necessity of a stay motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify a class action against the defendant student travel companies.

The claim alleges that 'Trip Leaders' were misclassified as volunteers rather than employees, depriving them of minimum wage and benefits under the Employment Standards Act.

The court found that all criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including a valid cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and a suitable representative plaintiff.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The representative plaintiffs in three related class actions concerning the employment status of major junior hockey players sought approval of a $30 million settlement.

The court declined to approve the settlement because of an eleventh-hour objection raising concerns that the standard form release in the settlement agreement might bar class members from pursuing other existing class actions against the defendants for concussions, sexual abuse, and anti-competitive behaviour.

The court found that the release needed to be renegotiated to ensure it did not prejudice class members' rights in those other actions.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action moved for leave to amend the Statement of Claim to add the corporate directors of the defendant companies as new defendants.

The amendment was sought due to concerns about the existing defendants' ability to pay outstanding wages, particularly in light of the global travel industry's collapse due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no prejudice to any party, as the defendants did not object and the action was still at an early stage.

Leave to amend was granted, with no costs awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision granting union certification for employees working on a federal nuclear waste remediation project.

The applicant argued that its labour relations were subject to federal jurisdiction because the project involved nuclear substances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was a large construction company performing a temporary contract and was not a federal undertaking itself, nor was it sufficiently integrated into the federal undertaking to trigger derivative federal jurisdiction.

A dissenting judge would have found derivative federal jurisdiction based on the federal regulatory regime governing nuclear substances.

The plaintiffs, former major junior hockey players, appealed a motion judge's refusal to certify five causes of action in their class proceeding against the Canadian Hockey League and its clubs, and appealed the costs order.

The defendants sought leave to cross-appeal the certification of the action, alleging a conflict of interest among class members.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal on certification, finding the motion judge erred in principle by using a proportionality analysis to dismiss properly pleaded causes of action as redundant.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-appeal, finding no conflict of interest.

On costs, the court upheld the motion judge's decision to make a portion of the plaintiffs' costs payable in the cause, but allowed the appeal regarding the U.S. defendants' costs, ordering that they be paid by the Law Foundation of Ontario rather than the plaintiffs, pursuant to the Law Society Act.

The court approved a class action settlement concerning unpaid hours and overtime for non-managerial, non-unionized employees of GoodLife Fitness Centres Inc. The settlement, reached after mediation, provides $7.5 million to approximately 22,000 class members across various employment categories, along with $1 million in class counsel fees and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court certified the class action for settlement purposes and found the settlement fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the benefits secured for the class, including compensation without individual proof of damages.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that its business as a telecommunications contractor for Rogers Communications falls under federal jurisdiction.

Relying on a recent Ontario Labour Relations Board decision involving the same respondent, the Tribunal found that the respondent failed to displace the strong presumption of provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.

The request to dismiss was denied and the application was allowed to proceed.

Following a certification motion in a proposed class action by former junior hockey players seeking minimum wage and overtime pay, the court determined the costs awards.

The plaintiffs succeeded in certifying the action against the Canadian teams but failed against the American teams.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $1,212,065.63 in partial indemnity costs, with $500,000 payable forthwith and the balance in the cause.

The American teams were awarded $200,000 in costs, which the court ordered to be credited against the plaintiffs' award, akin to a Bullock or Sanderson order, reflecting that both sides were responsible for the excessive litigation expense.

The plaintiffs, former players in the Ontario Hockey League, brought a motion to certify a class action against the Canadian Hockey League, its regional leagues, and their respective teams.

The plaintiffs alleged that the players were employees and were entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay under employment standards legislation.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding for the claims of breach of employment statutes and unjust enrichment against the Ontario teams.

The court declined to certify the claims against the U.S. teams, finding that a class action in Ontario was not the preferable procedure for those claims.

The court also declined to certify redundant causes of action, including breach of contract, negligence, breach of good faith, conspiracy, and waiver of tort.

The court found that the representative plaintiffs were adequate and had no disqualifying conflict of interest with current players.

The appellant police officer appealed a decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and requiring his resignation or dismissal.

The charges arose from an incident where the appellant allegedly used profanity and made derogatory comments and threats regarding superior officers.

The appellant argued that the Chief of Police, who adjudicated the matter, was biased because he participated in the initial investigation and relied on extraneous matters not in evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the appellant's conduct was worthy of censure, the Chief's reliance on extraneous matters and deep involvement created an appearance of unfairness.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was returned for a rehearing.