Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc.
Uber Class Action: Litigation Funding Approval
Summary
This is an interlocutory motion regarding the approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement in a class action proceeding. The underlying class action alleges breaches of employment contracts and statutory rights under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The court is determining whether the funding agreement meets the requirements of fairness, reasonableness, and access to justice.
Key Factors
- class actions
- employment standards
- litigation funding
- access to justice
Related Cases
Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc.
2026 ONSC 4102 (CanLII) · 2026-07-14Heller v. Uber: Class Action Discovery Ruling
This is an interlocutory procedural decision within a class action lawsuit concerning the employment status of Uber drivers. The court addressed motions regarding the discovery of class members, specifically granting leave to examine ten additional class members and determining the parameters for these examinations to ensure relevance to common issues.
Williams v. Enbridge Gas Inc.
2026 ONSC 3321 (CanLII) · 2026-06-04Class Action Settlement Approval: Unionised Employees
This is a procedural ruling regarding the approval of a class action settlement and associated costs. The court applied the Parsons factors to determine if the settlement, which included a 75 percent recovery and cy près distribution, was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting risks related to limitation defences and the presence of unionised employees. The court also approved counsel's contingency fees using the percentage fee approach and refused an honorarium to the representative plaintiff due to a lack of exceptional circumstances.
Chiang v. The Toronto Dominion Bank
2026 ONSC 2013 (CanLII) · 2026-04-10Class Action Certification: Systemic Pay Practices
This is a certification motion in a class action lawsuit against an employer regarding systemic pay practices. The court certified the action, finding that claims in contract, negligence, fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment disclosed causes of action and that common issues predominated. Aggregate damages were certified, but punitive damages were refused due to a lack of basis in fact.
Deacon v. Bank of Nova Scotia
2026 ONSC 1793 (CanLII) · 2026-03-31Class Action: Bank of Nova Scotia Vacation Pay Certification
This is a certification motion in a class action lawsuit brought by Home Financing Advisors against the Bank of Nova Scotia regarding employment standards compliance under the Canada Labour Code. The court addressed whether common issues existed concerning the calculation of vacation and statutory holiday pay, specifically whether the bank's disclosure methods were confusing under the Kinch test. The motion also considered expert evidence admissibility and limitation periods for accrued entitlements. Certification was granted for the proposed class.
Egan v. National Research Council of Canada
2026 ONSC 1429 (CanLII) · 2026-03-09Class Action: Punitive Damages for PFAS Contamination
This is a procedural decision regarding a class action certification order and a motion to amend pleadings to add punitive damages. The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim to include punitive damages based on the alleged failure to warn of PFAS contamination, finding a reasonable prospect of success under the Whiten standard. The court also amended the certification order to include punitive damages as a common issue and denied the defendant's cross-motion to strike.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Ontario Severance is an educational tool. If you are facing a serious employment law matter, consult with a qualified employment lawyer in Ontario.