Sarah Whitmore

In a certified class action regarding the employment classification of Uber drivers and delivery persons, both parties brought motions to compel answers to questions refused during examinations for discovery.

Uber also brought a motion under s. 15(2) of the Class Proceedings Act for leave to examine ten additional class members.

The court dismissed both refusals motions, finding the refused questions were irrelevant to the common issues, overbroad, or lacked foundation.

The court granted Uber's motion to examine the additional class members, finding their evidence regarding individual choices and interactions with the Uber app was highly relevant to the common issues, necessary, and would not cause undue burden.

The examinations were limited to a half day per class member.

The parties brought competing summary judgment motions regarding an Independent Auditor's report on Earn-Out Payments under a Share Purchase Agreement.

The Purchasers argued the auditor committed manifest errors and failed to follow instructions by deferring the choice of EBITDA calculation to the court.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the auditor materially departed from its mandate by failing to determine the EBITDA for the Second Earn-Out Period and directed the auditor to make that determination.

The court also found manifest errors in the auditor's treatment of Kits sales revenue and the starting point for related party sales adjustments, but dismissed challenges to the auditor's treatment of subcontractor costs.

The auditor's report was deemed not final and binding.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a pre-approval order regarding a $500 million settlement in principle with the Loblaw defendants in a national class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy for packaged bread.

The court granted the order, amending the certification of the Ontario action for settlement purposes only, appointing the settlement administrator, and approving the notice plan and pre-approval notices to inform class members of the settlement and their opt-out or objection rights.

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.