Linda M. Plumpton

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.

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.

The appellant appealed an order staying and dismissing his action against the respondents as an abuse of process.

The motion judge found that the appellant's claims were barred by a broad release contained in a Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the CCAA that restructured the Canadian market for Asset-Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the release clearly captured the appellant's claims and that it would be unjust to allow his claim to proceed in isolation after he had participated in the CCAA proceedings and voted in favour of the Plan.

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 appellant corporation appealed an order requiring it to indemnify a former director for costs and fines incurred in Ontario Securities Commission proceedings.

The director had admitted to the OSC that he failed to disclose a material change regarding a disputed contract, but maintained he honestly and reasonably believed the contract was not in jeopardy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 124(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act, the corporation bears the onus of proving the director did not act honestly and in good faith, or lacked reasonable grounds to believe his conduct was lawful.

The application judge made no error in finding the corporation failed to meet this burden.

Appeals and cross-appeals arising from the collapses of two airlines operating leased aircraft and leaving substantial unpaid airport and civil air navigation charges.

The Court held that legal titleholders were not personally liable for unpaid navigation charges under s. 55 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act because 'owner' was limited to persons with legal custody, control, or possession in the statutory context.

However, the seizure and detention remedies under s. 56 of that Act and s. 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act operated against aircraft owned or operated by the defaulting airlines and could not be defeated by leasing arrangements or by separating attached engines.

The remedies extended to security posted in substitution for the aircraft, subject to the motions judges’ supervisory discretion to craft fair terms.

Interest continued to run until payment, posting of security, or bankruptcy.

The appellant brokerage firm suspended all activity in the respondents' accounts pursuant to a contractual refusal clause, citing concerns over the principal's criminal record and potential regulatory scrutiny.

The trial judge found the refusal clause ambiguous, implied a requirement for reasonable notice, and awarded damages to the respondents for disrupted transactions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the refusal clause was unambiguous and permitted the broker to refuse instructions without notice when acting in good faith for its own protection.

The court found that implying a notice requirement contradicted the plain language of the agreement and the commercial reality of a broker's gatekeeper function.

The damages award was set aside.

The appellants, a stockbroker and two brokerage firms, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for negligence and breach of contract resulting in the respondents' investment losses.

The trial judge found the broker engaged in unauthorized trading and the firms failed to supervise him or warn the clients.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claims for loss of opportunity and punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on liability, apportionment, mitigation, and costs.

The respondent brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court to quash the applicant's appeal on the grounds of mootness and estoppel.

The underlying appeal concerned the applicant's standing to challenge the respondent's election to satisfy debenture obligations by issuing shares.

The single judge concluded that the issues raised on the motion to quash were intertwined with the merits of the appeal and potential prejudice to the parties.

Pursuant to section 21(4) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 61.16(2.1), the judge adjourned the motion to be heard by the full panel of the Divisional Court hearing the appeal.

The applicant held debentures issued by the respondent and applied for an oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act to prevent the respondent from converting the debentures to common shares.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the applicant lacked standing under the trust indenture.

The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing jurisdiction lay with the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, holding that the dismissal of the oppression application was an order made under the Act, and therefore the appeal must be heard by the Divisional Court.

The respondents, having been largely successful on the main appeals concerning the interpretation of seizure and detention remedies under the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act and the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, sought costs totaling over $631,000.

The court declined to award costs to any party.

The court reasoned that the proceedings raised novel issues of statutory interpretation that engaged the public interest, the respondents were not completely successful as their cross-appeals were dismissed, and the appellant airport authorities acted reasonably in bringing the appeals given the lack of established jurisprudential authority.

The appellants, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the complainant, appealed a Divisional Court costs order that awarded $25,000 against them despite their substantial success on the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Divisional Court erred in principle by awarding costs against a successful party and by denying costs to the complainant because he was represented by pro bono counsel.

The Court varied the order to award partial indemnity costs to the appellants for both the Divisional Court proceedings and the appeal.

The individual applicants were arrested at a political protest and transferred to a detention centre where they were strip searched.

They filed complaints of police misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The Chief of Police dismissed the complaints as unsubstantiated, and the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services confirmed this decision.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commission's decision, finding it patently unreasonable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's ruling, concluding that the Chief and the Commission applied the wrong evidentiary standard ("clear and convincing evidence" instead of whether the conduct "may" constitute misconduct) and failed to consider whether the applicants' Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure were violated.

The Court of Appeal declared the applicants entitled to a hearing by a different police force.

Following the release of the main judgment dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal issued an addendum to clarify the costs award.

The court upheld the motions judge's decision to award the individual defendants their costs against both plaintiffs, as the individual defendants had been improperly joined in the action.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing most of their claims against magazine publishers and a distributor for conspiracy to injure, conspiracy to unduly lessen competition, wrongful interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, and breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that there was some evidence of a common design or agreement among the corporate defendants to injure the appellants or unduly lessen competition, requiring a trial for the conspiracy and wrongful interference claims.

The appeal regarding the breach of contract and inducing breach of contract claims was dismissed, as the contract was terminated in accordance with its unambiguous terms.