Nadine Blum

The Association (AMAPCEO) filed grievances alleging that a co-worker (B) deliberately assaulted the grievor in the workplace and that the subsequent investigation was tainted by racial bias.

AMAPCEO sought an order preventing the grievor and B from working together.

B and her union (OPSEU) brought a motion to intervene in the arbitration to protect B's reputation and collective agreement rights.

The arbitrator granted the motion to intervene on a limited basis, finding a reasonable potential for conflict between the interests of B and the employer regarding the factual findings of the alleged assault and the potential remedy.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action against the defendants for charging illegal fees and imposing expiry dates on prepaid payment cards, alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and O. Reg. 17/05.

The court found that the defendants' Single Load Prepaid (SLP) cards were 'open loop gift cards' subject to the legislation, while their General Purpose Reloadable (GPR) cards were exempt as financial products.

The court granted summary judgment for the SLP cardholders, awarding $15,330,000 in aggregate damages for unlawful fees and seized balances, plus $1,500,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' intentional disregard of consumer protection laws.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance filed by a junior employee claiming a right to bump into a Dispute Resolution Officer position.

The employer argued that the claim was barred by a settlement agreement reached with a more senior employee regarding the same position, which contained a broad release clause.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement agreement explicitly applied only to the disputes filed by the senior employee and did not extinguish the bumping rights of other employees.

The Association filed two disputes challenging the employer's decision to reduce the performance standard for completing investigations from 110 days to 90 days, and a blanket prohibition on teleworking more than one day a week.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the first dispute, arguing it was a free-standing challenge to management rights.

The Association brought a motion requesting the employer proceed first with its evidence.

The Arbitrator dismissed the employer's jurisdictional objection, finding the dispute raised issues tied to merit pay under the collective agreement.

The Arbitrator also dismissed the Association's motion, ruling that the union must proceed first to establish a prima facie case in accordance with the Board's general practice.

Joyce Bernstein, the successful plaintiff in a class action certification motion against Peoples Trust Company and Peoples Card Services LLP, sought costs of $146,492.72.

Peoples Trust disputed the amount, arguing for divided success due to a reduced class period based on limitation periods, and proposed $120,000 with a portion payable in the cause.

The court awarded the full amount sought by Bernstein but ordered $10,000 of it to be payable in the cause.

The court found no divided success on the certification motion itself but deemed the plaintiff's failure to concede the limitation period issue as conduct that unnecessarily lengthened proceedings, warranting a small portion of costs to be payable in the cause as a salutary message against over-pleading in class actions.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding prepaid payment cards.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and O. Reg. 17/05 by charging illegal fees and imposing expiry dates on the cards.

The defendants argued that the cards were exempt from the legislation.

The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the five-part test for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and certified the action as a class proceeding, subject to an adjustment to the class definition to account for the limitation period.

The employer brought a motion to defer the hearing of a settlement grievance until a separate termination grievance involving the same complainant was determined.

The employer argued that if the termination grievance was dismissed, the settlement grievance would become moot.

The union opposed the motion, arguing for expeditious resolution of labour disputes.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that proceeding with the settlement grievance could result in unnecessary time and expense if the termination grievance was ultimately dismissed.

The matter was adjourned sine die pending the outcome of the termination grievance.

The Union sought clarification and production of additional documents regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to investigate and produce arguably relevant documents.

To expedite the hearing, the Board directed the Union to prepare a summary of work assignments and imposed confidentiality conditions on the produced documents, including an implied undertaking and a restriction that the Complainant not receive copies of the documents.

The employer sought a declaration that the parties had reached a binding settlement of a grievance.

The parties had agreed on monetary terms, and the union forwarded draft minutes of settlement.

The employer did not sign the draft but returned an amended version containing new terms, including a comprehensive release and a confidentiality clause.

The union rejected the amended version.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the new terms proposed by the employer were substantive and controversial, not mere modifications.

Because the employer declined to sign the union's draft and instead proposed new substantive terms, no binding settlement had crystallized.

The employer's request was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after her position was eliminated and she was not interviewed for a newly-created role.

Her union had previously filed grievances regarding the same reorganization, which were resolved through a settlement and full release of claims under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued she signed the settlement under duress and that the application covered matters outside the grievances.

The Tribunal found the factual issues were the same and the elements of duress were not met.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

Following a certification decision in a proposed consumer class action concerning prepaid phone cards, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought over $204,000 in partial indemnity costs after succeeding on certification of most proposed common issues.

The court reviewed the costs outline, reduced counsel hourly rates to align with the Rules Committee’s Information to the Profession, and removed an excessive research disbursement.

Considering Rule 57.01 factors, historical certification-motion cost averages, and proportionality principles tied to access to justice under the Class Proceedings Act, the court fixed costs at $150,000 all-inclusive payable forthwith by the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion for certification of a class action and approval of a settlement agreement regarding the defendant's sale of daily deal vouchers with allegedly illegal expiration dates.

The court found that the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act were met and that the settlement, which established a $535,000 fund, was fair and reasonable.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $235,000, noting that while pre-allocated fees require strict scrutiny, the amount was justified given the significant non-monetary value of the settlement to the class.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Bell Mobility regarding the expiry dates on pre-paid phone cards.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of the Gift Card Regulation under the Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and unfair practices.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, but not for unfair practices.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, appointed the plaintiff as the representative, created a sub-class for consumer-users, and certified five common issues.

The Association objected to a Review Officer's decision not to order the City to increase the pay equity adjustment for the Communication Operator job class.

The parties had negotiated a Pay Equity Plan which was approved by City Council, but the City subsequently refused to execute it, arguing that the Plan's provision for an hourly wage adjustment did not reflect the parties' intention to equalize annual salaries (a 'mutual mistake').

The Tribunal held that the Plan was binding on the City, as it had been properly ratified by Council.

The Tribunal rejected the application of the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake in the labour relations context, finding that parties are bound by the objective meaning of their written agreements.

The City was ordered to pay the hourly adjustments specified in the Plan, with interest on unpaid amounts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after her position was declared surplus and she was demoted.

The applicant's association, which had previously filed and settled a grievance on her behalf regarding the same events, requested intervenor status to ensure the settlement terms were respected.

The Tribunal granted the association's request to intervene.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application based on the prior settlement and issues of delay were deferred to a preliminary hearing.

The applicant union brought a motion for the production of confidential reports made to the City's Board of Control and Council regarding pay equity.

The City resisted production, arguing the reports were protected by Wigmore privilege because they were dealt with in-camera.

The Tribunal ordered production, finding that the City failed to establish the fourth precondition of the Wigmore test, as the potential injury to future confidential communications did not outweigh the benefit to the administration of justice in correctly disposing of the litigation.