Natalie MacDonald

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought leave under Rule 31.10 to examine a non-party, the defendant's former head of Human Resources.

The plaintiff alleged he was dismissed after complaining about harassment by his manager, and sought to question the non-party about similar complaints made by other employees.

The non-party was willing to testify but was bound by a non-disclosure agreement that the defendant refused to waive.

The court granted the motion, finding that the non-party had relevant information that the plaintiff could not obtain from the defendant, and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiff to proceed to trial without this discovery.

The plaintiff brought a refusals motion seeking an order that the defendant answer undertakings and refusals from the continued examination for discovery of its representative, and that the representative re-attend for a continued examination.

The motion addressed ten groupings of refusals relating to succession planning, supervisor qualifications and conduct, harassment policy, employment records, conflict of interest, and HR practices in a wrongful dismissal action alleging inducement and misrepresentation.

The court granted some questions and denied others across the groupings, finding divided success.

The defendant was ordered to answer within 45 days and the plaintiff was permitted one further one-hour examination by Zoom.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

The defendant brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim.

Prior to argument, the parties resolved the substantive issues and agreed to amend the impugned paragraphs, but could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, arguing the defendant's initial position was overly broad, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded for a settled motion.

The court declined to award costs, finding it could not determine which party achieved substantial success or whether the motion was unnecessary without hearing the merits.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The employer argued the employment contract limited termination pay to base salary and required the plaintiff to sign a release to receive an enhanced lump sum.

The court found the contract language was not sufficiently clear to exclude the value of unvested Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and bonuses from the notice period compensation.

The court also held it was unreasonable for the employer to withhold the lump sum payment because the plaintiff refused to sign a release while the compensation amount was in dispute.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $427,891.18.