John S. McNeil Q.C.

In this wrongful dismissal action, the defendant employer renewed a motion seeking production of a limited set of personal email messages related to the plaintiff's part-time real estate business, answers to refused discovery questions, and a further attendance for discovery.

The court held that the renewed request materially differed from an earlier unsuccessful motion because the request was narrower, compliance would be far less onerous, and amended pleadings now made the requested emails clearly relevant to specific allegations of dishonesty and breach of duty.

The court rejected res judicata and issue estoppel, emphasizing that relevance is defined by the pleadings and that amended pleadings changed the question to be decided.

Applying proportionality, the court found the limited production reasonable in light of the now more substantial claim and granted the requested relief.

The defendant moved for security for costs against multiple corporate plaintiffs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence establishing good reason to believe the plaintiffs lacked assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award.

In any event, the responding parties established they had a beneficial interest in a mortgage with residual value available to respond to any costs order.

The motion was dismissed.

The successful plaintiffs received partial indemnity costs, but their request for substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle was rejected for lack of genuine compromise.