Peter Englemann

In a national class action for unpaid overtime, the defendant bank brought a motion for a class-wide limitations order to time-bar claims falling outside provincial limitation periods.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the reasonable discoverability of the claims—specifically whether taking legal action was appropriate—required individualized assessments.

Evidence of power imbalances, fear of reprisal, and reasonable reliance on the bank's misrepresentations rebutted the statutory presumption of discoverability on a class-wide basis.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the limitations defence entirely was also dismissed.

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 plaintiff sought approval of a revised settlement in a class action regarding unpaid bank overtime.

The original settlement's claims process encountered difficulties, leading to a revised agreement where the defendant bank would pay an additional $20.6 million, bringing the total payout to $39.3 million.

The court approved the revised settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite some objections regarding the compensation bands.

The court also approved $2.3 million in legal fees for class counsel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her local union, the national union, and various union officials on the basis of disability, sex, association, and marital status.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on disability, sex, and association, finding no evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to those protected grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed all allegations against the national union respondents, holding that the national union did not have a free-standing duty under the Human Rights Code to investigate allegations of discrimination by a separate legal entity (the local union).

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of discrimination based on marital status against the local union respondents to proceed, finding they could not be dismissed at the summary hearing stage.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the remaining allegations under s. 45.1 or as an abuse of process.