William M. LeMay

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for further documentary production.

He sought documents relating to the termination of his former supervisor, an unredacted complaint file from the employer’s Office of the President, and mortgage files of other bank clients referenced during discovery.

The court held that documents relating to the supervisor’s termination were relevant because they could support the plaintiff’s allegation that the supervisor condoned the conduct relied upon for termination.

The court also ordered production of the additional mortgage files, finding they were likely to be relied upon by the defendant and therefore relevant and producible, with privacy concerns addressed by the deemed undertaking rule.

However, the request for an unredacted copy of the Office of the President file was denied after judicial review confirmed that the redacted portions were protected by solicitor‑client privilege.

The appellant employer appealed a decision granting the respondent employee post-retirement health and welfare benefits.

The employee had worked for the employer for nearly 32 years, transitioning from part-time to full-time.

The employer's HR department had informed the employee in writing that her part-time service would be commuted and she would qualify for benefits if she worked an additional three years, which she did.

Upon termination due to restructuring, the employer denied the benefits, claiming the HR information was an error.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that a binding contractual agreement had been reached between the parties entitling the employee to the benefits.

The appellant's claim for long-term disability benefits was denied in 1995.

She commenced an action in 2006, which was dismissed on summary judgment for being outside the two-year limitation period prescribed by her employee benefit plan.

On appeal, the appellant argued the term 'covered event' was ambiguous and that a rolling limitation period should apply.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the term 'covered event' was clear in context and occurred only once or twice, not monthly, precluding a rolling limitation period.