Ryan Kornblum

The defendant brought a motion under s. 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to dismiss a proposed national employment class action for delay.

The plaintiffs commenced the action in 2018 seeking pay in lieu of notice and outstanding vacation pay on behalf of the defendant's employees across multiple provinces.

The plaintiffs failed to take any of the required steps toward certification by the October 1, 2021 deadline.

Although the parties engaged in settlement discussions from 2018 to January 2025, no settlement agreement was concluded due to an impasse over the distribution protocol.

The court found no meeting of the minds and rejected the plaintiffs' estoppel argument.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff, a warehouse attendant at a dairy distribution center, was terminated for cause after being caught on video vaping inside the facility.

The employer argued this violated company policies, food safety regulations, and the Smoke Free Ontario Act, 2017.

The court found that the employer failed to establish the plaintiff knew vaping was prohibited under the general no-smoking policy, as the policy did not explicitly mention vaping and the required statutory signage had not yet been posted.

The court concluded that termination was a disproportionate response and that progressive discipline should have been applied.

The plaintiff was awarded four months' pay in lieu of notice, less mitigation earnings.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action against his former employer for alleged failure to pay overtime, alongside a personal wrongful dismissal action.

After settling his personal action and determining that the employer had largely fulfilled its overtime obligations, the plaintiff brought a consent motion to discontinue the proposed class action without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members who were unaware of the action.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal decision.

The appellant successfully appealed and varied the judgment from the trial court.

The court awarded costs of the appeal to the appellant at $10,000 and made no order as to costs of the trial, despite the respondent having been successful at trial.

The court found that the respondent's success was very limited and that the amount recovered fell within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which justified denying trial costs under the applicable rules.

The respondent, a dental hygienist, was employed by the appellant dental practice for approximately 19 years.

The appellant required the respondent to sign successive employment agreements limiting her wrongful dismissal entitlements to the statutory minimum under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Upon termination without cause in December 2012, the respondent received only one week's salary.

The trial judge found the employment agreements unenforceable due to lack of consideration and awarded damages in lieu of reasonable notice at 15 months.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the respondent's 2005 resignation and subsequent re-hiring broke the chain of employment, limiting her entitlements to the statutory minimum measured from 2005.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the 2005 resignation and re-hiring constituted a break in the employment relationship with new consideration, thereby limiting the respondent's entitlements to 7.5 weeks of statutory notice.

Following a simplified procedure trial where the plaintiff was awarded $69,091.12, the plaintiff sought costs of $26,198.65.

The court, considering the principle of proportionality and factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the requested costs excessive for a non-complicated case.

The court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to fix costs at $15,000 inclusive.

The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, was employed by the defendant's dental practice for 19 years.

During her employment, the employer restructured its business entities and required the plaintiff to sign three successive employment contracts, each attempting to limit her termination entitlements to the minimums under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Upon her termination without cause, the plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal.

The court held that the plaintiff's employment was continuous despite the corporate restructuring and that the employment contracts were unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration.

The court awarded the plaintiff 15 months' reasonable notice at common law, less amounts mitigated.