Nicholas Habets

The appellant employee appealed an order staying his wrongful dismissal action in favour of arbitration.

He argued the arbitration clause was invalid because the employment agreement contracted out of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, there is no appeal from a decision to stay a proceeding in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiffs were successful on a motion for partial summary judgment and successfully defended a cross-motion to dissolve an interim injunction regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs of over $40,000, relying on an offer to settle and the defendant's conduct.

The court found the plaintiffs' offer to settle was reasonable but noted that both parties expended excessive and unnecessary time on the motions.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $25,000.

The plaintiff tenants brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that a 2009 Minutes of Settlement amended their commercial lease and bound the defendant landlord, who purchased the property in 2012.

The landlord argued it was not bound because the tenants signed an estoppel certificate that did not fully detail the amendments.

The court granted the tenants' motion, finding that the estoppel certificate referenced the Minutes of Settlement, the landlord failed to exercise due diligence by not requesting a copy, and the landlord did not detrimentally rely on the certificate.

Two proposed privacy class actions arising from hospital employees’ unauthorized extraction of patient contact information for RESP sales leads were refused certification.

The court held that, on the actual evidentiary record, the disclosure of contact information alone, without disclosure of medical records or other objectively private information, could not support the tort of intrusion on seclusion because there was intrusion but no legally sufficient seclusion and no objectively highly offensive invasion.

Although certain claims, including a PHIPA s. 65 claim and some negligence theories against the hospitals and rogue employees, were arguable at the pleadings stage, there were no viable common issues and a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

Small Claims Court proceedings or PHIPA-related processes were found more proportionate for any remaining individualized claims.

The plaintiffs brought a Rule 21 motion seeking a declaration that Rouge Valley Health System was estopped from denying liability for various statutory and common law causes of action, based on an Order from the Information and Privacy Commissioner (PHIPA Order HO-013).

The court dismissed the motion, exercising its discretion under the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process.

It found that applying issue estoppel would be procedurally and substantively unfair given the magnitude of the class action ($400 million) against a public institution, and the informal, discretionary nature of the administrative tribunal's proceedings, which focused on its privacy law mandate rather than complex civil law.

The court also noted that such an application would be inimical to the due administration of justice by discouraging settlements with the Commissioner.