Lauri A. Reesor

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 Township of McGarry brought an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity.

The application was unopposed after the complaining employee resolved her issues and withdrew.

Based on affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found that the Township had not failed to maintain pay equity prior to April 28, 2008, and that the values assigned to job classes by the joint job evaluation committee were reasonable.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded, rendering the Pay Equity Office's compliance application moot.

The applicant delivered a summons to her former lawyer to compel him to attend the hearing.

The lawyer requested that the summons be quashed on the basis of improper service, lack of relevant evidence, and solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant did not respond to the request or indicate a waiver of privilege.

The Tribunal quashed the summons.

The appellant, a bank employee, sought to certify a class action against the respondent bank for systemic unpaid overtime.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding no common issues that would advance the litigation and that the bank's overtime policy requiring pre-approval was lawful under the Canada Labour Code.

The motion judge also awarded $525,000 in costs to the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the claims required individual assessments and that the costs award was reasonable.

The applicant, a former Table Games Supervisor of Vietnamese descent, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of race when it disciplined him, gave him a poor performance review, and subsequently terminated his employment during a company restructuring.

The Tribunal found that the discipline was imposed for a serious breach of internal procedures and that a non-Asian supervisor received harsher discipline for the same incident.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's uncontradicted evidence that the applicant was selected for termination based solely on his low performance ratings, not his race.

The application was dismissed.