Louis Todd Century

The plaintiff, EllisDon Residential Inc., sought an injunction against Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd. to resume work and against Defendant Unions for inducing breach of contract and interfering with economic relations.

The defendants argued the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

The court applied the Weber test, finding the essential character of the dispute related to labour relations and the interpretation of collective agreements, falling within the OLRB's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the injunction motion and stayed the action, deferring to the OLRB.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike two paragraphs from the Statement of Claim which sought wide-ranging non-monetary relief under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Attorney General argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief as it would intrude on the executive branch's powers.

The plaintiff, Ebrahim Toure, contended the motion was procedurally incorrect and that his claims for Charter relief were not plain and obvious to fail.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that Rule 21.01(1)(b) applies only to "causes of action" and not to "claims for relief" or "remedies." The court also granted the Attorney General an extension of time to file a statement of defence.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce appealed three lower court decisions in a class action initiated by Dara Fresco on behalf of 31,000 customer service employees.

The class action alleged that the Bank's overtime policies and record-keeping practices led to uncompensated overtime, contrary to the Canada Labour Code.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed all three appeals.

It upheld the motion judge's interpretation of "permitted" overtime under s. 174 of the Code, affirming that the Bank's policies and record-keeping were "institutional impediments" to proper compensation.

The Court also confirmed the certification of aggregate damages, ruling that the Supreme Court's Pro-Sys decision allowed the trial judge to reconsider this issue despite a previous refusal at certification.

Finally, the Court upheld the motion judge's decision to defer a class-wide limitations order and a constitutional question regarding the extra-territorial application of the Class Proceedings Act, deeming them premature.

The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed the "Student Choice Initiative" framework, which mandated an opt-out system for non-essential student ancillary fees at Ontario colleges and universities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the framework was unlawful.

For colleges, the framework conflicted with section 7 of the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002, which protects student governing bodies' normal activities.

For universities, the framework interfered with their statutory self-governance and institutional autonomy, a fundamental principle implicit in their establishing Acts.

The court clarified that the Minister's action was an exercise of executive authority, not prerogative power, and must yield to conflicting legislation.

This decision addresses cross-motions for summary judgment on damages issues in a class action for unpaid overtime.

The court previously found the defendant bank liable for breaching federal labour law regarding overtime.

In this stage, the court considered common issues related to unjust enrichment, remedies, and punitive damages, and crucially, whether to add aggregate damages as a common issue.

The court found that while the defendant was enriched, restitutionary relief was not available due to the breach of contract claim.

Punitive damages were denied as the bank's conduct, though careless, did not meet the "malicious, oppressive and high-handed" standard.

Most significantly, the court certified aggregate damages as a new common issue, finding a "reasonable possibility" that the plaintiff's proposed methodology, based on time-stamped computer data, could determine damages without individual proof, despite previous appellate court reservations about sampling.

The determination of the final aggregate damages quantum was adjourned pending expert reports and data access.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a Superior Court decision that declared provisions of Bill 5 (Better Local Government Act, 2018) unconstitutional for violating freedom of expression rights under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill 5 reduced Toronto's municipal wards from 47 to 25 mid-election.

The application judge found that the mid-campaign change substantially interfered with candidates' ability to communicate their political messages and violated voters' right to effective representation.

The Court of Appeal granted a stay of the lower court's order pending appeal, finding a strong likelihood that the application judge erred in law and that the appeal would succeed.

The court held that Bill 5 does not limit or restrict candidates' messages and that the right to effective representation falls under s. 3 (democratic rights), not s. 2(b) (freedom of expression), and s. 3 does not apply to municipal elections.

Electricity ratepayers brought an action seeking damages and declaratory relief concerning the sale of shares in Hydro One, alleging that the Premier and Ministers acted in bad faith to reward political donors and obtain further donations to the Ontario Liberal Party.

The motion judge struck out the claim under Rule 21, finding it was not justiciable as it concerned core policy and the pleadings were inadequate to support an inference of bad faith.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in assessing the facts in isolation, misconstruing material facts, and failing to accept pleaded facts as true.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' allegations were insufficient to plead bad faith and that accepting such a pleading would undermine the immunity afforded to core policy decisions.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following a successful summary judgment motion, requesting $28,339.41.

The defendant conceded entitlement to partial indemnity costs but proposed $7,500, arguing for divided success as the plaintiff did not succeed on all claims (aggravated damages, vacation pay) and the final award of $33,098.44 was close to the defendant's settlement offer.

The court found mixed success, noting the plaintiff was awarded 8 months' pay in lieu of notice (instead of 11 months sought), inclusion of a bonus, no vacation entitlement, and dismissal of punitive damages.

Considering the mixed success and the parties' offers to settle, the court fixed costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Lawyers (Evan L. Tingley and Baldwin Sennecke Halman LLP) were successful in their motion to strike out the Statement of Claim and dismiss the action against them.

They sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale ($7,412.33) or, alternatively, partial indemnity ($5,244.12).

The court found the plaintiff's allegations of breach of trust against the Lawyers lacked factual foundation and were vexatious.

However, considering the plaintiff was represented by an agent, not counsel, and the agent had a good faith basis for some allegations, substantial indemnity costs were deemed inappropriate.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,000, all inclusive, payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.

The Lawyers' request for personal costs against the plaintiff's agent, J. Brad Maher, for prejudicing or delaying the action was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of significant prejudice or delay.

This is a wrongful dismissal action where both parties agreed to proceed by way of summary judgment to determine the period of reasonable notice and the calculation of damages.

The plaintiff sought 9 to 12 months' notice and aggravated damages, while the defendant proposed a notice period not exceeding 7.5 months and disputed aggravated damages.

The court determined an 8-month notice period was appropriate based on the Bardal factors, and calculated damages for salary, health care benefits, pension, and a bonus.

The claim for vacation pay and aggravated damages was dismissed.