In the case of Cheetham v Bank of Montreal dated July 28, 2023, the plaintiff, Paul Cheetham, a former private wealth consultant at the Bank of Montreal, filed a proposed class action seeking to represent a class of non-unionized, variable compensation employees who worked for BMO as Private Wealth Consultants or Mortgage Specialists from January 1, 2010, onwards (collectively referred to as "Variable Compensation Employees"). Mr. Cheetham's claim was related to vacation pay and holiday pay owed by BMO under Part III of the Canada Labour Code (CLC). The Defendant opposed the certification of the class action on three main grounds. First, they argued that claims for unpaid benefits under employment standards legislation fell outside the jurisdiction of the court. Second, even if the court had jurisdiction, the individual nature of the claims made it difficult to apply a common determination to all members of the class. Third, BMO suggested that the CLC provided a viable alternative avenue for the proposed class members to pursue their claims if certification was denied. The court concluded that the plaintiff was a suitable representative plaintiff for the proposed class, which included all non-unionized Variable Compensation Employees who worked for the Bank of Montreal as Private Wealth Consultants and Mortgage Specialists from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. The court also found that the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract met the criteria under s. 4(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, and a class proceeding was considered the preferable procedure for this action.