David Blake v. Peter Charles Ansley Holdings Limited, and Ministry of Labour
File No.: 2521-00-ES Employment Practices Branch File No.: 60 007337
Before: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board: April 23, 2001
1This is an employee appeal of the refusal by an Employment Standards Officer to make an Order to Pay against the responding party Peter Charles Ansley Holdings Limited.
2At the commencement of the hearing into this matter on April 11, 2001, the parties advised the Board that they had agreed to adjourn the hearing into this matter on the merits. They agreed, however, to have a preliminary issue dealt with.
3In accordance with the agreement of the parties, this matter is adjourned until the criminal matters involving the applicant’s wife, Carol Blake, are conclusively dealt with by the courts (the criminal matters are allegations that Ms. Blake stole money from her former employer). “Conclusively dealt with” includes the resolution of all appeals, if any. Once Ms. Blake’s criminal matters are conclusively dealt with, either party may bring this matter back on for hearing within one year of the date the criminal matters are conclusively dealt with, failing which the application will be terminated.
4The preliminary issue is whether Ms. Blake ought to produce to the responding parties certain documents, which are set out in the summons to witness served on Ms. Blake.
5The employer argued that there was no reason not to produce the documents now, or at least after the criminal matters are finalized. Ms. Blake argued that she should not be required to produce the documents because her lawyer had possession of them and “he refused to give them to [her]”.
6It is obvious that Ms. Blake’s argument misstates the nature of the solicitor/client relationship. If she is required to produce documents, it is her obligation to instruct her counsel to provide them.
7Nevertheless, it is apparent that Ms. Blake’s criminal counsel has some objection to the production of documents requested in the summons to witness. Accordingly, out of fairness, the Board will give the parties another opportunity to state their positions.
8If Ms. Blake objects to the production of the documents listed in Schedule “A” to the “Summons to Witness”, she shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to file submissions with respect to why such documents ought not to be immediately turned over to the other parties. The responding parties shall have a further 30 days to file a response.
9I am seized of the preliminary issue but not of the matter on its merits. The Board also notes that the parties have jointly requested that the next hearing be heard in London.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board