Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The case addresses a class action regarding unpaid statutory vacation and public holiday pay under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (ESA).

• Medcan admitted its payroll system failed to account for required ESA payments on variable compensation for certain years.

• The motion focused on compelling answers to discovery questions tied to common issues certified in the class proceeding.

• Some discovery questions were deemed relevant to common issues and ordered to be answered, especially those concerning pay formulas and ESA obligations.

• Other questions were refused as they related to individual damages, fiduciary duties, or issues not certified in the class action.

• No costs were awarded as both parties had nearly equal success on the motion.

Background of the dispute

In Curtis v. Medcan Health Management Inc., 2025 ONSC 2902, three named plaintiffs—Nicole Curtis, Amr Galal, and Katrina Buhlman—brought a class action against Medcan Health Management Inc. and several of its directors and officers. The plaintiffs alleged that Medcan failed to properly pay employees their full entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), particularly statutory vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation such as bonuses and commissions.

Medcan admitted that in late 2018 it discovered its payroll software did not account for these required payments. The company took steps to remedy the issue for 2018 and 2019. However, the plaintiffs argued that this failure affected more employees and extended to earlier or later periods than acknowledged. They also alleged that Medcan failed to maintain proper systems to ensure ESA compliance.

Nature of the motion

The plaintiffs brought a procedural motion to compel answers to questions that were either refused or taken under advisement during the discovery of Medcan’s representative. This motion was evaluated in light of the rules governing class actions: prior to a common issues trial, discovery is limited strictly to those issues that have been certified as common to the class.

The court reviewed each disputed question against this standard, referencing a jointly prepared chart identifying which questions were in dispute.

Court’s findings and analysis

Justice Glustein found that several key questions were directly relevant to the certified common issues and therefore ordered Medcan to answer them. These included:

• The formulas used in calculating remedial payments to employees

• Medcan’s position on whether certain ESA obligations, such as payment within seven days of termination, were part of contractual terms

• The impact of 2019 ESA legislative changes on contracts

• Whether a trust relationship under the ESA existed for the handling of vacation pay

In contrast, questions that ventured into areas not certified as common issues—such as individual damages, fiduciary duties, or whether Medcan’s conduct was in good faith—were ruled out of bounds. For example, Medcan was not required to answer questions about individual class members’ bonus structures or whether punitive damages could be pursued, as those matters were not certified and had been previously excluded or abandoned.

Outcome and costs

Justice Glustein’s decision was a mixed outcome for both sides. While many of the plaintiffs' questions were allowed and must be answered, a substantial number were dismissed as inappropriate for the common issues phase of discovery. As both parties achieved roughly equal success, the court exercised its discretion and ordered no costs.

Legal significance

This endorsement underscores the importance of confining discovery in class actions to certified common issues and illustrates how courts balance relevance, proportionality, and procedural fairness. The ruling also reinforces that admissions of ESA non-compliance do not automatically entitle plaintiffs to unrestricted discovery on all employment matters, particularly where individualized damage assessments or non-certified issues are involved.