Gillian Round

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion seeking the production of unredacted copies of employee complaints, a whistleblower complaint, and an investigation report relied upon by the defendant to justify termination for cause.

The defendant argued the redacted identities were protected by qualified privilege and that disclosure would cause harm and breach confidentiality.

The court applied the Wigmore criteria and concluded that the public interest in the proper administration of justice and fairness to the plaintiff outweighed the interest in protecting the complainants' identities.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to produce the unredacted documents.

The plaintiff, in a wrongful dismissal action, brought a motion seeking unredacted production of internal investigation documents (complaints, whistleblower report, and investigation report) that the defendant bank relied upon to justify the plaintiff's for-cause termination.

The defendant had produced redacted versions, citing confidentiality.

The court ordered the production of the unredacted documents, finding that documents incorporated by reference into pleadings should not be redacted, and the defendant failed to establish that disclosure would cause considerable harm or infringe public interests under the Wigmore test.

The court emphasized that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed any interest in protecting the identity of complainants in this employment context, and that PIPEDA was not a bar to disclosure required by court rules.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning the calculation of relief letter carrier complements under a collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that absences of relief letter carriers temporarily filling long-term vacancies must be included in the bar chart review process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and prior binding awards was reasonable and made labour relations sense.

The applicant employee was terminated for theft of time.

His union grieved the termination, but the arbitrator upheld the discharge.

The union did not seek judicial review.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review on his own behalf.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the general rule of union exclusivity applied.

Although the collective agreement gave the employee the right to pursue arbitration independently, he did not exercise that right, and therefore could not claim standing under the exceptional circumstances doctrine.