Articles

Under the Employment Standards Act, there is no general prohibition against the arbitration of disputes arising under employment contracts. This has given rise to the question of whether proposed class actions under the ESA should be stayed in favour of arbitration where the agreement allegedly creating the employment relationship contains a clause requiring arbitration of disputes. This was precisely the issue that arose in the recent case of Heller v Uber Technologies, 2018 ONSC 718

In Houle v St. Jude Medical Inc., 2018 ONCA 88, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that a decision of the Superior Court of Justice to approve a third party litigation funding agreement (“LFA”) on the condition that certain revisions be made to it (which the parties declined to accept) was an interlocutory decision for the purposes of an appeal.

Since the introduction of ride sharing technology such as Uber, a legal dust-up with traditional taxi drivers and brokers seemed inevitable. Perhaps less predictable was the form that dispute would take. In Metro Taxi Ltd. v. City of Ottawa, the Court considered a certification motion for a class action brought by taxi license plate holders and brokers against the City of Ottawa for their regulatory handling of the introduction of Uber, claiming both negligence and discrimination.

Justice Morgan’s recent decision in David v Loblaw, 2018 ONSC 198 demonstrates that, absent misrepresentation, misinformation or oppressive conduct, the Courts are reluctant to intervene in pre-certification agreements between defendants and putative class members wherein the defendant limits its potential exposure by offering compensation in exchange for a limited release of liability.

Justice Perell in the recent decision of Houle v St. Jude Medical Inc., 2017 ONSC 5129 has endorsed with some revisions, the use of a creative third party litigation funding agreement, which included a partial contingency fee retainer together with a fee-for-services retainer for Class Counsel, as a way to further the goals of the class action regime.

While competition law specialists are familiar with the ongoing debate about umbrella purchaser claims, most Canadian lawyers could be forgiven for wondering what all the umbrella fuss is about. Far from being individuals who rejected raincoats or ponchos in favour of a more traditional option, umbrella purchasers are now at the center of a heated debate in Canadian competition law.

Justice Perell’s recent decision in Batten v Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., 2017 ONSC 53 (“Batten”) appears to signal an increased willingness on the part of the courts to scrutinize in great detail, the evidentiary foundation of the merits of a proposed class action at the certification stage.

Justice Perell’s recent decision in Batten v Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., 2017 ONSC 53 (“Batten”) appears to signal an increased willingness on the part of the courts to scrutinize in great detail, the evidentiary foundation of the merits of a proposed class action at the certification stage.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Parsons v Ontario and Endean v British Columbia, released October 20 2016, has significant implications for the adjudication and management of class proceedings in Canada.