Paul Wearing

The moving defendants sought a temporary stay of the plaintiff's certification motion pending the determination of a certification motion in a related price-fixing class action involving different electronic components.

The defendants argued that a stay would promote efficiency as the expert evidence and methodology were substantially similar in both actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the actions involved different products, time periods, and parties, and that an indefinite delay would be unfair to the plaintiff class and contrary to the goals of judicial economy and access to justice.

The plaintiff in a proposed price-fixing class action regarding linear resistors brought motions to discontinue the action against six defendants and to certify the action for settlement purposes against the Kamaya defendants.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding no prejudice to the class as tolling agreements were in place and there was no evidence of the discontinued defendants' involvement in the conspiracy.

The court also certified the action for settlement purposes, approving an expanded class definition that included British Columbia purchasers to facilitate a comprehensive settlement with the Kamaya defendants.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel's retainer agreement, fees, and disbursements following a partial settlement in a price-fixing class action.

The plaintiff class counsel sought approval for 25% of the settlement amount ($2.35 million) as fees, plus disbursements and interest.

The court reviewed the retainer agreements for compliance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and assessed the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements based on established factors.

The court approved the retainer agreements and the requested fees and most disbursements, but declined to approve interest on disbursements at this stage, pending further developments in the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a class action settlement agreement with the Panasonic defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy action concerning linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment of $2,350,000 and significant cooperation from the Panasonic defendants to assist in prosecuting the action against non-settling defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, the benefits of cooperation, and the risks of continued litigation.

However, the court rejected a proposed term in the draft order that would allow class counsel to use settlement funds for future disbursements, citing concerns about retainer agreements and counsel's financial risks.

The appellant filed a human rights complaint against the respondents, which was deferred pending a civil action.

The civil action was settled, with the appellant agreeing not to pursue further claims.

The appellant subsequently filed a Superior Court application against the respondents and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, claiming damages for the respondents' failure to respond to the complaint.

The motion judge dismissed the application as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure without requesting submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion to dismiss the claim without submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and subsequently commenced a civil action for breach of contract and negligence, which included an allegation of reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of the civil action.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application because the civil action was largely framed in tort and contract and did not seek relief for the same Code violations.

However, to avoid inconsistent findings due to overlapping facts and issues, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the civil action is resolved.

Following a four‑week civil trial involving wrongful dismissal, oppression claims, and counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential information, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff’s claim for damages exceeding $1 million was dismissed, although he succeeded in establishing that he had been terminated rather than having resigned.

The defendants’ $2 million counterclaim was largely unsuccessful except for minor reimbursement of approximately $300 in expenses.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found success divided but concluded the defendants were the more successful parties overall.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants, reduced to reflect divided success, unnecessary litigation steps, and excessive defence costs.

The plaintiff, former President of a private trust company, sued for wrongful dismissal and oppression after his employment ended amidst allegations of working for another company and improperly claiming expenses.

The court found that the plaintiff was terminated, not that he resigned.

However, the termination was justified for cause because the plaintiff breached his fiduciary duties by misrepresenting his role with another company and engaging in a pattern of claiming expenses from his employer while also deducting them on his income tax returns.

The oppression claim and the employer's counterclaim for misuse of confidential information were dismissed, though the employer was awarded reimbursement for specific improperly claimed expenses.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding no indication that the WSIAT proceeding would address the same issues, such as accommodation to the point of undue hardship, and therefore no risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

After multiple scheduling issues, missed deadlines, and denied adjournment requests, a hearing was scheduled for November 19, 2012.

Neither the applicant nor his representative attended the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned and for abuse of process, noting the applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal rules and directions, and the unexcused failure to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing personal and family medical issues, including acting as a caregiver for family members and experiencing physical and mental health issues.

The applicant had also failed to comply with disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation or establish extraordinary circumstances to justify the delay.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled, and the applicant was barred from calling witnesses or relying on documents due to his failure to disclose.

The applicant filed 14 separate human rights applications against various respondents, alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal held a joint summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the applications, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith for the delay or failed to plead facts that could reasonably lead to a finding of discrimination.

Portions of the applications against Ryerson University, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and Metroland were permitted to proceed, with the applicant ordered to provide further particulars.

The applicant employer sought a stay of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision certifying the respondent union, pending an application for judicial review.

The central issue before the OLRB was whether the applicant was the true employer.

On the motion for a stay, the court considered whether the first branch of the test required a 'strong prima facie case' or merely a 'serious issue to be tried'.

The court held that in the context of OLRB decisions protected by strong privative clauses, the 'strong prima facie case' standard applies.

The court found the applicant failed to meet this standard, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the union.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Corporation of the City of Peterborough objected to a Review Officer's order requiring the implementation of a pay equity plan negotiated with the Professional Fire Fighters Association.

The employer argued the comparison system and job data collection were flawed and gender-biased.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the parties erred in treating each rank of Fire Fighter and Fire Alarm Operator as separate job classes, concluding there is only one job class for each.

The Tribunal also found the job data collection and comparison system inadequate.

Rather than ordering the parties to renegotiate, the Tribunal appointed a Review Officer to assist in settling the plan using the Tribunal's findings on job classes and job content.

One member dissented, arguing the parties' agreement on job classes should have been respected.

The City of Brampton applied to settle a pay equity plan under s. 17(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The City sought to amend its application to add issues regarding the documentation and replication of job ratings by the Review Officer.

The Association opposed the amendment and moved to dismiss the remaining issue regarding appropriate male comparators.

The Tribunal declined to allow the amendment, finding it would undermine the efficiency of the proceedings and that the City misconceived the role of the Review Officer and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining issue, finding that all appropriate male comparators had been considered.

The proceeding was terminated.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal heard preliminary motions regarding an application by the City of Brampton challenging a Review Officer's order.

The Association moved to dismiss the application for failure to provide adequate particulars.

The Tribunal struck paragraph 23 of the City's application, finding that the City's allegation that the Review Officer failed to follow a prior agreement between the parties did not disclose a prima facie violation of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that a Review Officer acting under s. 16(2) is not bound by the parties' prior procedural agreements and is not required to survey all male job classes once appropriate comparators are identified.

The Tribunal also ruled that pay equity comparisons should generally be based on data as of the statutory effective date or up to the mandatory posting date.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees of Roy Ayranto Sales Limited.

Several employees filed objections alleging that union supporters used coercion, intimidation, and threats to job security to obtain membership evidence.

The Board found that the individuals making the threats were not union officials and had no authority to carry them out, and that the objecting employees did not sign cards as a result.

The Board also dismissed an allegation by one employee that she was misled into signing a card, finding her testimony not credible.

The Board concluded that the union's membership evidence was reliable and granted the certificate.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision and sought remedies for the Employer's failure to comply with an order to negotiate a pay equity plan.

The Employer admitted non-compliance, citing financial constraints.

The Tribunal varied its original order, finding that the Employer's failure to bargain made the previous remedy inappropriate.

The Tribunal directed a review officer to prepare the pay equity plan, starting with the Union's proposed comparison system.

The Tribunal also ordered the Employer to pay compensatory damages, including the costs of pre-testing the system and the review officer's costs in preparing the plan, but declined to state a case for contempt or award legal costs.

One member dissented on the extent of the compensatory damages.

Following a decision finding the respondents liable for violations of the Labour Relations Act, the respondents requested a re-attendance to address the impact of an Employment Standards award on the Board's compensation order, and to amend the wording of the Notice to Employees.

The Board found the request regarding compensation premature, as the parties had not yet attempted to resolve the quantum of damages themselves.

The Board agreed to amend the Notice to Employees to accurately reflect the specific remedy granted in the decision.

The union filed complaints alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith, interfered with the union's representation rights, and engaged in an unlawful lock-out by transferring work to a related, unorganized entity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by failing to send an informed committee to negotiations, failing to disclose its intention to move work, bargaining directly with employees, and locking out employees to undermine the union.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, return the transferred work, compensate employees for lost wages, and provide the union with employee addresses.