Sarah Elise Whitmore

The appellants sought to certify a class action claiming unpaid overtime on behalf of Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors employed by the respondents.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion, finding that eligibility for overtime pay could not be determined as a common issue because it required an individual assessment of each employee's duties, autonomy, and managerial responsibilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no material misapprehension of evidence and that the lower courts correctly applied the legal principles governing the common issue requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the Application, which the respondent did not oppose.

The respondent also requested to amend its Response and to remove a personally named respondent as a party, to which the applicant consented after receiving assurances regarding vicarious liability.

The Tribunal granted the requests to amend the pleadings and removed the personally named respondent from the Application.

The applicants, who identify as atheists, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against them on the basis of creed by permitting only the Gideons to distribute religious literature (the New Testament) to grade five students.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held that atheism falls within the definition of 'creed' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the board's original policy, which allowed only one religious group to distribute texts, was discriminatory.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the board's revised policy, which ostensibly allowed other groups to distribute materials but was applied inconsistently and restrictively, also failed to comply with the Code.

The Tribunal ordered the board to cease distributing religious publications unless it developed a new, non-discriminatory policy.

The appellants appealed a decision denying certification of a proposed class proceeding against CIBC and CIBC World Markets for alleged misclassification of employees making them ineligible for overtime.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that despite an amended class definition, the issue of eligibility for overtime for Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors required individual, case-by-case determinations regarding their managerial or supervisory functions.

The appellants failed to establish a basis in fact that the job functions were sufficiently similar to be resolved as a common issue.

The applicants, an atheist father and his daughter, brought human rights applications alleging that the respondent school board's policies regarding the distribution of religious publications in schools discriminated on the basis of creed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association sought leave to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the Commission leave to intervene and make an opening statement.

The CCLA was granted leave to intervene, but its participation was limited to submissions on how Charter values should inform the interpretation of the Code, as the Tribunal declined to allow the CCLA to introduce new constitutional issues not raised by the applicants.

In a proposed overtime misclassification class action against a financial institution and its affiliate, the plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and undertakings arising from cross‑examinations on affidavits filed for an upcoming certification motion.

The court balanced the need for a full evidentiary record against the proximity of the certification hearing and the burden of additional production.

Requests for a third‑party inspection of the defendants’ human resources system and certain historical records were refused as disproportionate or unnecessary at the certification stage.

However, several questions concerning the duties of investment advisors, associate investment advisors, and the rationale for overtime eligibility policies were ordered answered because they related to class definition and commonality issues.

Other questions relating to merits issues, irrelevant job descriptions, or hypothetical inquiries were not compelled.