Leslie A. Brown

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid overtime wages against his former employers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings that the appellant failed to establish a cause of action against one defendant, failed to show the existence of two or more class members, failed to provide a litigation plan, and that preferable procedures such as small claims actions or employment standards complaints were available.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the defendants should have been ordered to produce lists of class members, as the appellant had not pursued this request prior to the certification motion.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the defendants for alleged unpaid overtime wages, arguing that the defendants misapplied a road building exemption to employees working at permanent asphalt facilities.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary burden under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

Specifically, the plaintiff provided no evidence of any other employee in the same circumstances, failed to establish common issues that would not require highly individualized assessments, and failed to demonstrate that a class action was the preferable procedure compared to Small Claims Court or Employment Standards Act remedies.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to produce a workable litigation plan.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, place of origin, and ethnic origin be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that WSIB decisions regarding loss of earnings benefits appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant also suggested deferring the application pending a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB decisions were limited to eligibility for benefits related to workplace injuries, whereas the Code's duty to accommodate applies to all disabilities, not just those arising from workplace injuries.

The Tribunal denied both the request to dismiss and the request to defer.

The applicant alleged a breach of settlement of a prior human rights application and subsequently sought to set aside the settlement agreement, alleging misconduct by her former counsel and the respondent.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration of a prior interim decision because it was not a final decision.

The Tribunal granted the former counsel's request to intervene to respond to the allegations of misconduct.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to defer the application pending a newly commenced civil proceeding, noting the advanced stage of the Tribunal matter and potential procedural issues in the civil action.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a breach of settlement, seeking an interim remedy to amend the Minutes of Settlement so that settlement funds would be paid directly to her rather than to her former solicitor in trust.

The respondent opposed the request and sought a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to establish that the Application appeared to have merit or that the remedial objects of the Code would be frustrated by delay.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request for a summary hearing to determine if the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.