Sarah Elise Whitmore

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The parties disputed the wording of a Certification Order in a class action regarding whether Uber drivers are employees.

The defendants requested the addition of the phrase 'to be calculated and assessed on an individual basis' to the paragraph describing the relief sought.

The court granted the request, finding that the phrase provided true and helpful information to the putative class members regarding the potential need for individual issues trials.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed disputes regarding the Notice of Certification and Notice Plan in a certified class proceeding against Uber.

The plaintiffs, representing drivers and delivery people seeking employee classification, proposed a notice plan.

Uber responded with alterations, including broader newspaper publication and inclusion of its defence commentary.

The court largely sided with Uber, approving a more robust, province-wide notice plan sensitive to language and diversity, and requiring the inclusion of Uber's legal position in the notices.

The court also apportioned the costs of newspaper notices 33% to the Plaintiffs and 67% to Uber.

This decision addresses an omnibus motion and cross-motion within a certified class proceeding concerning the employment status of Uber drivers and delivery people.

The court granted Uber's request to certify an additional common issue, which clarifies the possible classifications of the relationship between Uber and class members (customer, independent contractor, or employee).

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' request to certify a common issue regarding the validity of the Class Action Waiver, finding that no cause of action had been pleaded to support such a claim.

The enforceability of the Class Action Waiver will not be determined at the common issues trial but may be addressed at individual issues trials.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce appealed three lower court decisions in a class action initiated by Dara Fresco on behalf of 31,000 customer service employees.

The class action alleged that the Bank's overtime policies and record-keeping practices led to uncompensated overtime, contrary to the Canada Labour Code.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed all three appeals.

It upheld the motion judge's interpretation of "permitted" overtime under s. 174 of the Code, affirming that the Bank's policies and record-keeping were "institutional impediments" to proper compensation.

The Court also confirmed the certification of aggregate damages, ruling that the Supreme Court's Pro-Sys decision allowed the trial judge to reconsider this issue despite a previous refusal at certification.

Finally, the Court upheld the motion judge's decision to defer a class-wide limitations order and a constitutional question regarding the extra-territorial application of the Class Proceedings Act, deeming them premature.

The plaintiff sought approval of a $22.25 million settlement in a class action alleging unpaid overtime by the defendant trucking company.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant risks of proving systemic liability and the range of damages calculated by experts.

The court also approved a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff and class counsel's 30% contingency fee, noting that while third-party funding arrangements must now be considered in assessing legal fees under the amended Class Proceedings Act, it would not retroactively adjust fees in this case.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Uber on behalf of drivers and delivery people, alleging they are employees misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to benefits under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Uber opposed certification, arguing the relationship is idiosyncratic and relying on a new Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Clause.

The court certified the action for breach of contract and ESA claims, finding some basis in fact for common issues regarding employment status based on the standard form contracts and app functionality.

The court declined to strike down the arbitration clause at this stage, ordering that class members be given notice of its potential legal significance.

Dara Fresco, the representative plaintiff in a class action, moved to quash two aspects of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce's appeals from a judgment on common issues.

Fresco argued that the issues concerning limitation periods and aggregate damages were only appealable to the Divisional Court with leave, not the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions to quash, holding that it had jurisdiction over all aspects of the appeals under s. 30(3) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, as the determinations on limitations and aggregate damages were part of the judgment on common issues.

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 appellants sought to enforce a mandatory arbitration clause in their standard form services agreement, requiring the respondent to resolve any dispute through mediation and then arbitration in the Netherlands under ICC Rules at an up-front cost of approximately US$14,500.

The majority held that the arbitration clause was unconscionable, as there was a clear inequality of bargaining power between a large multinational corporation and a low-income delivery driver, and the resulting arbitration agreement was improvident in that the prohibitive fees effectively denied the respondent any meaningful access to dispute resolution.

The Court also clarified the framework for determining when a court, rather than an arbitrator, should resolve challenges to arbitral jurisdiction, holding that a court may depart from the general rule of arbitral referral where there is a real prospect that the challenge would never be resolved if referred to arbitration.

A concurring judgment by Brown J. agreed with dismissal but preferred to ground the result in public policy rather than unconscionability, finding that the arbitration clause imposed undue hardship by barring access to a legally determined dispute resolution.

Côté J. dissented, reasoning that the arbitration clause was valid, that the Court of Appeal erred in applying the Arbitration Act rather than the International Commercial Arbitration Act, and that the appropriate remedy, if any, was a conditional stay requiring Uber to advance the initiation fees.

Walsh Construction Company Canada (WCC) brought a motion to compel the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to produce approximately 1,600 documents over which TTC claimed litigation privilege.

The court applied the "dominant purpose" test for litigation privilege, conducting a contextual analysis of when litigation was reasonably contemplated and whether the documents were created primarily for litigation or for other purposes such as contractual claims review, project completion, or budget management.

The court found that while litigation was anticipated, many documents served multiple purposes, and TTC failed to establish dominant litigation purpose for a significant portion of the disputed documents.

The court ordered the production of most documents, with specific exceptions for those genuinely created for the dominant purpose of litigation or solicitor-client privilege, and provided directions for redactions.

The plaintiff, a former radio host, brought a defamation action against the defendants over a magazine article detailing his criminal harassment of a former partner.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court found that the article related to a matter of public interest (gender-based harassment).

While the plaintiff showed the action had substantial merit and the defence of justification might not succeed, he failed to prove that the harm he suffered from the article outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court noted the plaintiff's career damage occurred prior to the article's publication due to the criminal charges themselves.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on the liability common issues in a class action for unpaid overtime on behalf of customer service employees of the defendant bank.

The court found that the bank's overtime policies, which required pre-approval, and its failure to record actual hours worked, violated the Canada Labour Code.

The court concluded that the bank permitted uncompensated overtime by failing to prevent it, thereby breaching its statutory and contractual duties to the class members.

The plaintiffs, former major junior hockey players, appealed a motion judge's refusal to certify five causes of action in their class proceeding against the Canadian Hockey League and its clubs, and appealed the costs order.

The defendants sought leave to cross-appeal the certification of the action, alleging a conflict of interest among class members.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal on certification, finding the motion judge erred in principle by using a proportionality analysis to dismiss properly pleaded causes of action as redundant.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-appeal, finding no conflict of interest.

On costs, the court upheld the motion judge's decision to make a portion of the plaintiffs' costs payable in the cause, but allowed the appeal regarding the U.S. defendants' costs, ordering that they be paid by the Law Foundation of Ontario rather than the plaintiffs, pursuant to the Law Society Act.

The appellant brought a proposed class action on behalf of Uber food delivery drivers, claiming they were employees entitled to protections under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).

The service agreement required arbitration in the Netherlands under ICC Rules.

The motion judge granted a stay in favour of arbitration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the arbitration clause invalid on two independent grounds: (1) it constituted illegal contracting out of an employment standard (the complaint investigation process under s. 96 of the ESA), contrary to s. 5(1) of the ESA; and (2) it was unconscionable at common law due to prohibitive costs (US$14,500 upfront), significant inequality of bargaining power, and the absence of independent legal advice.

The court held that validity of arbitration agreements is a matter for the court to determine under s. 7(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, not the arbitrator.

The appellants, owners of a residential property in Caledon, Ontario, appealed a decision dismissing their application against the Ontario Heritage Trust and a local resident.

The appellants' property is accessible only via a 1 km driveway through parkland owned by the OHT, over which they hold an easement for ingress and egress.

The appellants claimed the easement granted them exclusive use of the driveway and sought to prevent public access by hikers using trails on the OHT property.

The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the deed of easement did not grant exclusive use, that public use by hikers did not substantially interfere with the appellants' easement rights, and that an injunction against the publication of a hiking guide was not warranted.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a security for costs order made by Gillese J.A. The order required each moving party to post $15,000 as security for costs in their appeal from a lower court decision.

The motion was brought almost seven months after the deadline prescribed by Rule 61.16(6), which requires service and filing within four days of the order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving parties had formed a bona fide intention to challenge the order within the required timeframe, the lack of merit in the proposed motion and significant prejudice to the respondent outweighed these factors.

The court emphasized the respondent's history of unpaid costs orders and the vexatious nature of the litigation.

The plaintiff, an UberEATS driver, commenced a proposed class action alleging that Uber drivers are employees and entitled to the protections of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The defendants moved to stay the action in favour of arbitration in the Netherlands, relying on the arbitration clause in the service agreements.

The court held that the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 applied and that, under the competence-competence principle, the arbitrator must determine their own jurisdiction in the first instance.

The court found no unconscionability or statutory bar to arbitration and stayed the action.

The plaintiffs appealed a Small Claims Court order that dismissed their claim against the personal defendants.

The Small Claims Court judge made the order on her own initiative without providing notice or an opportunity for submissions, contrary to Rule 12.02(4).

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the order, finding it was made without jurisdiction and in breach of procedural fairness.