Monkhouse Law Employment Lawyers has obtained an order to certify a class action lawsuit against Medcan Health Management Inc. for underpaid vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation such as commissions and bonuses.
The employee class action lawsuit alleges that the company’s practice of calculating vacation pay and public holiday pay for variable compensation employees violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).
The Statement of Claim is available here. The initial press release is available here.
The amended Statement of Claim is available here. The amended Statement of Defence is available here.
UPDATE
February 5, 2026:
The Court set a schedule to determine the plan to proceed to individual trials to determine the damages owed to class members. See Endorsement here.
October 23, 2025:
The common issues trial was settled, and the settlement was endorsed by Justice Leiper. See endorsement here.
The parties will proceed to case management for the individual issues trials.
The agreed answers to the common issues are as follows:
1. Common Issue 1
(a) For reference, Common Issue 1 asks: “What are the terms (express or implied or otherwise) of the Class Members’ contracts of employment with the Defendants regarding vacation pay and public holiday pay on variable compensation?”
(b) The Parties agree to answer Common Issue 1 as follows: “The contracts of employment between Medcan and each Class Member include the relevant provisions of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) and regulations enacted under the ESA, as well as the terms of Medcan’s relevant binding workplace policies and any signed offer letters/employment contracts.”
(c) The Parties agree and confirm that none of the following issues raised by the Plaintiffs and described below were argued or determined at the common issues trial of this matter:
(i) Whether “Shaun Bucks” are wages under the ESA;
(ii) Whether individual class members’ contracts included a duty of good faith owed by Medcan; and (iii) Whether individual class members’ contracts included a fiduciary duty owed by Medcan to hold vacation pay in trust.
(d) The Defendants moved at the outset of the common issues trial for an order that the Plaintiffs may not pursue any class members’ claims which exceed the employment standards for holiday and vacation pay as provided by the Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c 41 (the “ESA”). That motion was dismissed by Justice Leiper on October 21, 2025. The relevance of this decision for any class member is left to the individual issue trials. For clarity, the issue of whether the contracts of any individual class member or Medcan policies provide a greater benefit than the minimum entitlements of ESA was not determined at the common issues trial.
2. Common Issue 2
(a) For reference, Common Issue 2 asks: “Whether the Defendants breached any of the contractual terms and, if so, how. Without limiting generality of the foregoing, whether the Class Members are owed damages from the Defendants for: (a) Vacation pay on variable compensation earned by them during the class period; and (b) Public holiday pay on variable compensation earned by them during the class period.”
(b) The Parties agree to answer Common Issue 2 as follows: “Yes; for at least some Class Members, for at least certain periods during the Class Period, and potentially all Class members, Medcan breached the terms of employment relating to vacation pay and public holiday pay obligations by failing to include commissions and/or bonus payments in the calculation of their public holiday pay/vacation pay. Accordingly, subject to the existence of individual issues regarding releases, limitation periods, and/or entitlement to damages, damages would be owing to Class Members. ”
3. Common Issue 3
(a) For reference, Common issue 3 reads: “Whether the Defendants have a duty (in contract or otherwise) to accurately record and maintain a record of Class Members’ vacation pay and public holiday pay to ensure that Class Members were appropriately compensated for same. (a) If such a duty exists, whether the
Defendants breached that duty.”
(b) The Parties agree to answer the first part of Common Issue 3 as follows: “Yes. Medcan had a statutory duty (incorporated as an implied term in the employment contracts of each Class Member) to accurately record and maintain a record of Class Members’ vacation pay and public holiday pay to ensure that Class Members were appropriately compensated for same.”
(c) The Parties agree to answer Common Issue 3(a) as follows: “Yes; for at least some Class Members, for at least certain periods during the Class Period, and potentially all Class members, Medcan did not accurately record and maintain a record of their vacation pay and public holiday pay entitlements..”
4. Common Issue 4
(a) Common issue 4 asks: “Whether the Defendants have a duty (in contract or otherwise) to implement and maintain an effective and reasonable system or procedure which ensured that the duties in Common Issues 2 were satisfied for all Class Members. (a) If such a duty exists, whether the Defendants breached that duty.”
(b) The Parties agree to answer the first branch of Common Issue 4 as follows: “Yes. Medcan had a duty to implement and maintain an effective and reasonable system or procedure which ensured that duties in Common Issue 2 were satisfied for all Class Members.”
(c) The Parties agree to answer Common Issue 4(a) as follows: “Yes; for at least some Class Members, for at least certain periods during the Class Period, and potentially all Class members, Medcan did not implement and maintain an effective and reasonable system or procedure which ensured that vacation pay and public holiday pay entitlements were satisfied for all Class Members.”
The Parties have agreed that these answers to the common issues end the need for evidence or further submissions at the common issues trial.
October 21, 2025:
Read the full October 21, 2025 Endorsement (Curtis v. Medcan Health Management Inc., 2025 ONSC 5945) where the Court dismissed Medcan’s motion to limit class member claims to ESA minimums.
June 9, 2025:
This action is funded by the Class Proceedings Fund. The Class Proceedings Fund provides some funding for the costs of disbursements incurred in prosecuting the case and will provide an indemnity to the representative plaintiffs for any adverse cost awards made by the court. In exchange, the Fund will be entitled to receive 10% of the net proceeds of any judgment or settlement achieved for the class.
April 30, 2025:
The common issues trial is scheduled for weeks October 20 and 27, 2025 before Justice Leiper.
September 23, 2024:
The Court has set the following timetable in this action:
– Defendant to provide its undertakings from the June 25, 2024 examination (or refusals or undertakings which the defendant answers) by October 25, 2024
– discoveries of the representative plaintiffs to be completed by November 29, 2024
– pre-trial to be held by June 1, 2025
– common issues trial before Justice Akbarali for the weeks of October 20 and 27, 2025
April 4, 2024:
The discovery of Medcan’s Representative for Discovery is scheduled on June 25, 2024.
October 26, 2022: Class Action Certified
By order of Justice Perell of the Superior Court dated October 26, 2022 a class action has been certified against Medcan and its directors.
This action was brought on behalf of all variable compensation employees of Medcan Health Management Inc. who worked from April 7, 2005 until October 26, 2022.
The action alleges that the Company’s variable compensation employees were underpaid vacation and public holiday pay on their variable compensation. The Company disputes these claims.
If you wish to exclude yourself from the proceeding, you must complete an opt-out form no later than Friday, February 24, 2023. The opt-out form and more information about the class action is available here.
You can read the Certification Order for Curtis v. Medcan Health Management Inc dated October 26, 2022 here. The amended Certification Order dated August 21, 2023 is available here.
The long notice of certification is available.
On December 29, 2023, the Court issued its decision concerning the settlement of the discovery plan, the decision is available here.
IMPORTANT – No action is required by employees to join this class action. In Ontario, class action lawsuits are an “opt out” system, so if this class action lawsuit is certified, all employees who fall under the class action definition will be members of the class unless they opt out.
To keep in touch and provide your up to date information, please fill out this form.
Current and former variable compensation employees who have information that may assist the litigation should contact Alexandra Monkhouse at 416-907-9249, ext. 211 or