Gregory Graham

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 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 creditors brought a motion for an adjournment pending the Ontario Labour Relations Board's determination of a related employer application.

The court found that the Board's determination was essential to deciding who is ultimately entitled to the funds paid into court by the garnishee.

Given the upcoming mediation and lack of prejudice to the non-parties, the court granted the adjournment without costs.

The parties disputed the listing price for a jointly owned property that had been listed for sale multiple times without success.

The plaintiffs sought a drastic price reduction to ensure a sale before the first mortgage matured, while the defendant opposed this to avoid signaling desperation and risking an improvident sale.

The court ordered incremental price reductions over a five-month period to balance the parties' concerns.

This costs endorsement addresses two motions: the plaintiffs' successful motion for leave to file an affidavit and their unsuccessful motion for interim recovery of personal property.

The court found mixed success, noting that the plaintiffs were prima facie entitled to costs for the leave motion and the defendant for the recovery motion, both on a partial indemnity basis.

However, due to the mixed outcome and overreaching costs claims by both parties, the court ultimately ordered that each party bear their own costs for both motions.

This endorsement addresses several motions in a contentious family dispute involving co-owned property and personal belongings.

The parties are sisters and their family members.

The plaintiffs brought motions for a receiver, to strike affidavits, to stay a counterclaim, for leave to file a new affidavit (Martin affidavit), and for interim recovery of personal property (a piano and sheet music).

The court granted the leave motion, finding the new affidavit responsive to a matter raised on cross-examination regarding the admissibility of bail affidavits.

For the recovery motion, the court granted the recovery of sheet music but dismissed the recovery of the piano, finding that the plaintiffs did not meet the high threshold of showing substantial grounds for ownership, as credibility issues were best left for trial.

The parties agreed to continue efforts to sell the co-owned property and the court provided directions for this process.