Steven M. Barrett

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a workplace investigation into an incident between a Black grievor and a white colleague.

While the arbitrator found the investigation procedurally flawed, he dismissed the claim that it was tainted by anti-Black racism or unconscious bias.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the proper articulation of the test for prima facie discrimination is a question of central importance subject to a correctness standard of review.

The court held that the arbitrator misapprehended the test by requiring racism to be the 'dominant possibility' and by misapplying the shifting evidential burdens.

The discrimination claim was remitted to the arbitrator.

This decision concerns the approval of a $30 million settlement in a class action alleging that major junior hockey players were employees entitled to minimum wage and other benefits.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the high litigation risks and uncertain legal landscape.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fees but declined to approve honoraria for the representative plaintiffs, reiterating that such awards should be rare and reserved for exceptional contributions.

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

Class counsel sought approval of a $44 million contingency fee following a $153 million settlement in an unpaid overtime class action against CIBC.

The court found the requested fee, representing 30% of the settlement, to be excessive and potentially champertous given the megafund nature of the settlement.

The court approved a reduced fee of $25 million (17% of the settlement), finding it provided fair compensation for the risks undertaken while protecting the integrity of the profession.

The court also denied the representative plaintiff's request for a $30,000 honorarium, finding her involvement was not extraordinary enough to justify the award.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

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.

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 applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that harmonized wages for a newly merged bargaining unit to the highest pre-existing rate.

The Board of Arbitration based its decision on a well-established pattern of post-merger harmonization in the hospital sector, without analyzing the hospital's arguments that its specific circumstances were unique.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the award, finding that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons meeting the minimum standards of justification, transparency, and intelligibility as required by Vavilov.

The matter was remitted to the Board.

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 province enacted Bill 5, reducing Toronto wards from 47 to 25, mid-municipal election.

Applicants challenged its constitutionality.

The court found Bill 5 violated candidates' and voters' freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, as it substantially interfered with campaign communication and denied effective representation due to increased ward sizes.

The violation was not justified under s. 1, as the legislative objectives (better decision-making, voter parity) were not pressing and substantial enough to warrant mid-election implementation, nor was minimal impairment demonstrated.

The impugned provisions were declared unconstitutional and set aside, requiring the election to proceed with 47 wards.

Following a certification motion in a proposed class action by former junior hockey players seeking minimum wage and overtime pay, the court determined the costs awards.

The plaintiffs succeeded in certifying the action against the Canadian teams but failed against the American teams.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $1,212,065.63 in partial indemnity costs, with $500,000 payable forthwith and the balance in the cause.

The American teams were awarded $200,000 in costs, which the court ordered to be credited against the plaintiffs' award, akin to a Bullock or Sanderson order, reflecting that both sides were responsible for the excessive litigation expense.

The plaintiffs, former players in the Ontario Hockey League, brought a motion to certify a class action against the Canadian Hockey League, its regional leagues, and their respective teams.

The plaintiffs alleged that the players were employees and were entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay under employment standards legislation.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding for the claims of breach of employment statutes and unjust enrichment against the Ontario teams.

The court declined to certify the claims against the U.S. teams, finding that a class action in Ontario was not the preferable procedure for those claims.

The court also declined to certify redundant causes of action, including breach of contract, negligence, breach of good faith, conspiracy, and waiver of tort.

The court found that the representative plaintiffs were adequate and had no disqualifying conflict of interest with current players.

The Association filed a grievance regarding the appropriate adjustment of the Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefit entitlement for the 2014 calendar year.

The collective agreement transitioned from indexing LTIP increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to indexing them to active employee wage increases, effective January 1, 2015.

The employer argued that the 2014 increase should be based on the wage increase (which was zero), while the Association argued it should be based on the 2014 CPI increase, applied in 2015.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the clear language of the collective agreement maintained CPI indexing until December 31, 2014, meaning the 2015 payments must reflect the 2014 CPI increase.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement.

The issue was whether the agreement provided for 100% reimbursement for a psychologist's report diagnosing the grievor's child with autism, or if it was subject to a cap for psychological services.

The Board had relied on a clause in a subsequent Implementation Agreement that neither party had made submissions on.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because it relied on a paragraph that, in context, only applied to routine eye examinations and had no relevance to the psychological assessment at issue.

The Board's decision was quashed and remitted to a differently-constituted panel.

The plaintiff class, comprising salaried and executive retirees of General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL), brought a class action alleging that GMCL breached its contracts by reducing post-retirement health care and life insurance benefits.

On motions for partial summary judgment, the court held that the reservation of rights clauses in the benefit documents for salaried employees were ambiguous and did not clearly permit GMCL to reduce benefits after the employees had retired.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, including contra proferentem and the duty of good faith, the court found GMCL breached its contracts with the salaried retirees, including new hires and early retirees.

However, the court found that the reservation of rights clause for executive retirees was clear and unambiguous, allowing GMCL to reduce their benefits.

Following the successful appeal by the defendant overturning the certification of a proposed class action for unpaid overtime, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $300,000.

The plaintiff and the Law Foundation of Ontario argued that no costs or a maximum of $50,000 should be awarded, citing the novel legal issues and public interest nature of the case.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the novel points of law and access to justice considerations under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but held that the Act does not insulate representative plaintiffs from adverse costs.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $60,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award regarding the contracting out of hospital sterilization services, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive formal notice of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had actual notice of the hearing, its timing, and the issues in dispute, but chose not to attend.

The court also noted that the contracting out had been completed and there was no longer any tangible dispute between the parties, making judicial review inappropriate.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant railway company misclassified first line supervisors as managerial employees to avoid paying overtime under the Canada Labour Code.

The motion judge certified the action but significantly redrafted the common issues, rejecting the plaintiff's proposed misclassification issue due to a lack of commonality.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge correctly rejected the misclassification issue because individualized assessments of job duties were required.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in certifying a reframed common issue about the minimum requirements for managerial status, as it suffered from the same lack of commonality.

The certification order was set aside.