Priya Sarin

The applicant, a temporary help agency, sought judicial review of ten orders to pay approximately $2.8 million in unpaid wages under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The applicant bypassed the statutory review process before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, arguing exceptional circumstances due to impecuniosity, as the Act requires paying the ordered amount in trust to access the Board review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy before the Board and failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to establish impecuniosity.

The applicant, a temporary help agency, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision affirming an order to pay unpaid wages to twelve workers.

The applicant argued the workers were employed by a subcontractor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant was the employer under the Employment Standards Act, as the purported subcontractor was not a legitimate enterprise and the applicant exercised control over the workers' assignments.

The applicant's motion for judicial review of a case management master's decision to recuse herself from construction lien proceedings was dismissed for prematurity.

The respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the applicant made reckless attacks on the integrity of a judicial officer.

The Divisional Court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, noting the bias issue was not determined on its merits.

The court ordered the applicant to pay $30,000 to the respondent 229 and $3,000 to the respondent St. Clare's.

Following a motion to strike where the defendant achieved partial success, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for $5,000 or no costs due to mixed success.

The court found that success was not divided, as the plaintiff's position had morphed and required further particulars.

The court awarded the defendant $8,000 in costs.

The defendant, National Bank of Canada, brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, specifically claims for intentional interference with economic relations and breach of the duty of good faith.

The court granted the motion to strike the claim for intentional interference with economic relations, but with leave to amend, finding the plaintiff failed to plead an unlawful act actionable by a third party.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the claim for breach of the duty of good faith, finding it was not plain and obvious that it could not succeed, but ordered the plaintiff to provide further particulars.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Master's refusal to recuse herself from a construction lien reference due to alleged bias.

The Divisional Court considered whether the application was premature, as it challenged an interlocutory order before the underlying proceeding was completed.

Applying the factors from Air Canada v. Lorenz, the court weighed the potential hardship to the applicant against the adverse consequences of delay, waste, and fragmentation.

The court concluded that the adverse consequences of delay outweighed the possible hardship to the applicant, particularly given the statutory framework of the Construction Lien Act designed for speedy resolution.

The application was dismissed for prematurity.

The appellant appealed a decision of the motion judge in a bankruptcy and insolvency proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, declining to consider arguments that were not placed before the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.