Jason Beeho

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant and third party to answer undertakings and refusals from an examination for discovery in a wrongful dismissal action.

The questions related to alleged whistleblower issues, a threatening text message sent by the third party, and unpaid commissions.

The court applied the tests for relevance and proportionality, ordering the respondents to answer most of the questions as they were logically connected to the matters in issue defined by the pleadings, particularly the allegations of bad faith conduct.

Questions that sought legal conclusions or information readily available from another party were not ordered to be answered.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the examination for discovery of David Eckert, the president and CEO, as the corporate representative for the defendants Juice DMS Advertising Limited and Yellow Pages Limited.

The corporate defendants argued that Adrian Fitz-Gerald, an executive advisor with direct involvement in the relevant events, was a more appropriate representative.

The court applied the test for substituting a corporate representative, which places the onus on the corporation to show the plaintiff's chosen representative is inappropriate.

The court found that Eckert lacked sufficient direct knowledge of the matters in dispute and that requiring his attendance would be unfairly onerous given his extensive managerial responsibilities.

Fitz-Gerald, conversely, was found to be personally involved and knowledgeable.

The motion to examine Eckert was dismissed, and Fitz-Gerald was ordered as the appropriate representative.

Costs were awarded to the corporate defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused at the defendant's examination for discovery in a constructive dismissal action.

The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in Potter to hold that the plaintiff could not compel answers regarding information that was not within her knowledge at the time she alleged constructive dismissal.

The court also determined that litigation privilege arose no earlier than the date the defendant understood the plaintiff considered herself constructively dismissed.

The court issued mixed rulings on the specific refused questions, ordering some to be answered and upholding the refusal of others.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings and questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant Juice DMS Advertising Inc., and an order compelling a representative of Juice DMS to re-attend discovery.

The court granted most of the plaintiff's requests for answers to undertakings and refusals, including compelling Juice DMS to make inquiries of a former employee now adverse in interest.

A re-attendance on discovery was ordered by consent.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant, a pediatric surgeon, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent his employer, the Hospital for Sick Children, from suspending him with pay during an investigation into allegations of workplace misconduct.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions.

It found no serious question to be tried, concluding that an employer has an implied power to suspend an employee with pay for administrative reasons related to misconduct allegations, provided the suspension is necessary, in good faith, temporary, and with pay, as per Cabiakman.

The court also found no irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages and determined that the balance of convenience favored the Hospital, as the suspension was crucial for a fair investigation and patient care.

The application for an injunction was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.