Philip R. White

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, a 62-year-old senior family law clerk with 27 years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment claiming wrongful dismissal.

The defendant law firm argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned after a meeting regarding workplace restructuring, during which she became upset, handed in her security pass, and left the office.

The court found that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation when viewed contextually, noting her long tenure, emotional state, and the employer's failure to make further inquiries.

The court granted summary judgment on liability, finding the plaintiff did not resign, and ordered a trial of an issue for the quantum of damages.