Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: News and Updates

Important updates for Primary Response class members

Primary Response Inc. and Guarda Canada Security Corporation have served their motion records on the plaintiff. The motion records contain the evidence the defendants will put forward in the motion to have the class action certified.

The motion for certification has been rescheduled from December 2019 to March 11 and 12, 2020.  Instead, the parties will engage in mediation in December.

You can read Primary Response’s motion record here.   You can read Guarda Canada’s motion record here.

In June the plaintiff made further amendments to her statement of claim. You can read the Amended Amended Statement of Claim here.

Comments closed

Motion date set and plaintiffs’ motion record filed with the Superior Court

The certification hearing in this proposed class action has been scheduled for December 19 and 20, 2019.

The plaintiff’s certification motion record has been filed with the Superior Court.

The next steps will be for the defendants to file their motion record and for the parties to cross-examine the people who have sworn affidavits, if required. The parties will then file written legal arguments in preparation for the hearing.

You can read the plaintiff’s motion material here: Volume 1, Volume 2, and Volume 3.

Comments closed

Class-action suit alleges security guards stiffed on wages, overtime

The Toronto Star reports on a new class action against security companies for unpaid wages

The Toronto Star talks to Josh Mandryk and Christine Davies about a potential new class action against Primary Response Inc. and Garda Canada Security Corporation.

The statement of claim alleges that the Primary Response, which was purchased by Garda Canada, violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and its contracts of employment with security guards by requiring security guards to show up for work a minimum of fifteen minutes early, but failing to compensate them for this time.

The claim also alleges that Primary Response unlawfully averaged security guards’ overtime pay over a two-week pay period, despite the fact that its overtime averaging agreement had expired and a subsequent application for approval had been rejected by the Ministry of Labour. The claim also alleges that Primary Response made uniform deductions from payroll which did not comply with the ESA.

“This is about defending core employment standards protections for a group of precarious workers facing well-documented barriers to enforcing their rights,” said Joshua Mandryk, a lawyer with Toronto-based labour law firm Goldblatt Partners, which initiated the suit.

“Although the law is quite clear, off-the-clock work and unpaid overtime similar to that alleged in this case are all too common in our economy. We hope this case sends a strong reminder that ‘off-the-clock’ time required by an employer is work which must be compensated.”

“Security guards work long hours in challenging and potentially dangerous situations. Like all workers, they deserve to be paid fairly for their hard work,” said Goldblatt co-counsel Christine Davies.

Read the full article here.

Comments closed

Class action commenced against Primary Response

Goldblatt Partners LLP is counsel in a proposed class action filed August 20, 2018 against Primary Response (“Primary Response”) and Garda Canada Security Corporation (“Garda”), which purchased Primary Response in January 2018.  The class action is for unpaid wages, including overtime, unlawful overtime averaging and unlawful payroll deductions and has been filed on behalf of all current and former security guards who worked for Primary Response in the Province of Ontario since August 6, 2016.

The Statement of Claim filed by the proposed representative Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Primary Response violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) and its contracts of employment with Class Members by requiring the Class Members to show up for work a minimum of fifteen minutes early, but failing to compensate them for this time, by unlawfully averaging the overtime pay of the Class Members over a two-week pay period despite the fact that its overtime averaging agreement expired and its subsequent application for approval was rejected by the Ministry of Labour, and by making uniform deductions from payroll which did not comply with the ESA.

Note: The class action does not include security guards for any period during which the terms and conditions of their employment were governed by a collective agreement.

Comments closed