Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-18-00589331 Motion Heard: 2025-11-18 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Amalia Costa, Plaintiff And: Edward Jones Investments, Defendant

Before: Associate Justice Jolley

Counsel: Natalie MacDonald, counsel for the moving party plaintiff Ben Aberant and Grace McDonnell, counsel for the responding party defendant

Heard: 18 November 2025

Reasons for Decision

[1] The plaintiff seeks an order that the defendant answer undertakings and refusals give on the continued examination for discovery of its representative held on 28 November 2023 and an order that Ms. Wall re-attend a continued examination.

[2] The plaintiff was employed with the defendant from 15 February 2016, until the termination of her employment on 13 September 2017. The plaintiff alleges that she was induced to leave her previous employment with the Royal Bank of Canada, where she worked for 26 years. The plaintiff also alleges, among other things, material misrepresentations on the part of the defendant with respect to her position with the defendant.

[3] The plaintiff alleges bad faith and seeks total damages in the amount of $1,100,000 for breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, negligent misrepresentation and punitive and exemplary damages. The defendant denies any inducement and any misrepresentations and asserts that the plaintiff was lawfully terminated pursuant to the employment agreement and pleads that any amount owing to the plaintiff has been paid.

[4] The parties are agreed that my colleague Associate Justice McAfee accurately set out the governing law on refusals motions in paragraphs 3-6 of her earlier decision on refusals arising from the parties' original examinations for discovery in this action, Costa v Edward Jones 2022 ONSC 7294 and I need not repeat that law here. Rather, I turn to the ten groupings of refusals.

Group 1 - Succession Planning Due to Derrick Strizic's Cancer Diagnosis

Under Advisements 17, 18, 19, 29, 30, 33, 34, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 121

Refusals 14, 15, 17, 20, 21

[5] The plaintiff makes these allegations concerning Derek Strizic in the following paragraphs of her statement of claim:

10. Ms. Costa eventually agreed to explore the opportunity with Edward Jones under the promise of working with Mr. Derrick Strizic, the then General Partner of the Client Solutions Group (the "Group"). Over the course of the interview process and during her negotiations with Edward Jones, Ms. Costa advised the Firm, on several occasions, that the opportunity to work with Mr. Strizic was the primary reason she might entertain Edward Jones' proposals.

11. During the recruitment process, Ms. Costa evaluated the risks of leaving her secure employment at RBC (where she was successful and had established a solid personal brand and network over decades of valued contributions). She knew from her experience that, at her senior level, visible sponsorship from the General Partner who hired her (i.e. Mr. Strizic) would be crucial to her success in a new and unknown Firm. As Ms. Costa and Mr. Strizic had both worked at RBC, they had a common foundation and understanding for the work ahead. Ms. Costa trusted Mr. Strizic and this was a significant factor in her decision to take the risk to leave RBC.

12. In fact, during the final stage of the recruitment process, Ms. Costa would not sign the letter of employment via courier delivery, which had been offered. Rather, she requested an in-person meeting so that she could receive an in-person final assurance from Mr. Strizic that he had no plans to leave Edward Jones. During this meeting, Mr. Strizic assured Ms. Costa that he had no plans to leave Edward Jones. Based on these assurances and other representations made to her, Ms. Costa signed the offer letter and accepted her position at Edward Jones.

17. Second, despite Ms. Costa's repeated inquiries regarding Mr. Strizic's future with Edward Jones, she was never advised that Mr. Strizic had recently been diagnosed with cancer and that, as a result, there was a significant likelihood that changes in reporting structure would take place in the very near future.

18. Upon learning of Mr. Strizic's health related retirement decision, six (6) months after she began working at Edward Jones, Ms. Costa approached Human Resources General Partner, Ms., Ola Wall, about her concerns. Ms. Wall later advised her that Mr. Strizic had told her about the discussion between Ms. Costa and Mr. Strizic wherein Ms. Costa pointedly asked him (as a condition of signing the Agreement) if he had plans to leave the Firm. Ms. Wall further advised that at the time, Mr. Strizic and Ms. Wall jointly decided not to advise Ms. Costa of the truth.

[6] This first grouping of questions seeks information about what the board, partners and executive as well as certain individuals knew about Strizic's illness (and when) and what succession plans they had in relation to his potential departure.

[7] Mr. Weddle testified that – if he did discuss Strizic's cancer with him prior to their April 6 th , 2016 email exchange, "it would have been in passing at a partner's meeting or event. If such conversations occurred, he has no recollection of them." There is no suggestion that Strizic's diagnosis was discussed other than "in passing". I am not satisfied that a search of the defendant's board and other minutes is warranted and under advisement questions 17, 18, 19, 29, 44 and 46 for board, partner and executive meeting minutes and refused questions 14 and 15 relating to attendance at partners' meetings need not be answered. For questions 44 and 46, the defendant answered "If notes were located, they have already been produced." In order to clarify that answer, it is to advise if it did produce notes and, if so, where they are located in the productions.

[8] The timing of when who knew about the diagnosis is, however, relevant and questions 30, 33, 34, 40, 41, 43, 45 are to be answered.

[9] Refusal 121 of this group seeks information from Strizic's employment file, specifically whether there are records in Strizic's 2015 and 2016 file that reference either cancer, succession planning, new leaders, retirement or what to do, and to produce those documents. A.J. McAfee heard a similar refusal and refused production of Strizic's medical documents and limited the question to be answered to only those portions of the file concerning when Strizic spoke with Wall or Weddle. The questions in this group concerning the succession plan seem to have arisen at the continued examination after that motion was heard. I agree with A.J. McAfee that Strizic's medical references are not relevant but references to succession planning, new leaders and retirement are relevant based on the pleadings and question 121 is to be answered to that extent.

[10] The last three questions in this grouping, refusals 17, 20 and 21 ask about Weddle's obligation to report Strizic's diagnosis to his partners, operational risk to the company if no succession plan is done and whether there were emergency procedures in place to replace key figures who leave in the event of illness. I disagree that refusal 17 requires a legal opinion, as the defendant argues. The defendant can answer this question based on corporate policies and Wall's general HR knowledge as the head of HR for the defendant. Refusal 20 is speculative and need not be answered. Refusal 21 is also not relevant and need not be answered. There is no evidence that the replacement of Strizic was done or needed to be done on an emergency basis.

Group 2 - Steve Rueschhoff

Under Advisements 67, 69, 73, 75, 82, 83, 85, 87, 138, 139, 140, 144, 154, 156, 159, 160

Refusals 47, 48 and 49

[11] As concerns Steve Rueschhoff, the plaintiff pleads as follows:

26. Ms. Costa's new leader, Mr. Rueschhoff, was five (5) levels down from the Managing Partner (compared to two (2) levels down with Mr. Strizic's leadership). More troubling, however was the fact that Mr. Rueschhoff was physically based in the U.S., and had no previous context for the Canadian operations, Associates, history or culture. Further, Mr. Rueschhoff did not have interest in (or time for) Ms. Costa's success and Ms. Costa's experience and contributions were significantly devalued.

29. Moreover, as Mr. Rueschhoff was not a GP, he was not included in Canadian GP communication and meetings. As a result, Ms. Costa not only lost the valuable profiling and advocacy that Mr. Strizic provided her, she now found herself with no formal connection to Canadian Partners, and one-sided, often biased and disconnected representation with US Partners.

30. Despite Ms. Costa's great successes under Mr. Strizic's leadership, including an exceptional employee survey, and recognition for acting courageously to strategically evolve the business, Ms. Costa's successes diminished once she began reporting to Mr. Rueschhoff.

31. Mr. Rueschhoff reduced Ms. Costa's rating from "Exceeding Expectations" (under Mr. Strizic's leadership) to "Needs Improvement", a rating given only to the lowest 3% of employees in Canada. Mr. Rueschhoff hastily delivered this rating on May 5, 2017 after having spent a total of approximately eight (8) hours in 1:1 distance meetings with Ms. Costa between a January 25, 2017 initial visit to Canada and a second visit starting April 30, 2017.

32. This rating immediately reduced Ms. Costa's brand during the Firm's talent calibration process.

33. Mr. Rueschhoff's harsh treatment of Ms. Costa caused her extreme stress and resulted in her advising Ms. Wall and Ms. Rybka, a human resources associate at Edward Jones, separately of his "bullying", harassing and undermining behaviour. Edward Jones, however, failed to investigate, or take any steps at all to address, any of Ms. Costa's concerns.

[12] The defendant agreed to produce Rueschhoff's development plans for 2015-2018 that A.J. McAfee had already ordered produced (Q67, 73). It also agreed to produce the plaintiff's development plan(s) for 2016/2017, so Q73 as concerns the plaintiff is to be answered. It agreed to answer Q82 (to advise what information Rueschhoff sent Levinson the week prior to his 2 February 2027 email). If the information is relevant, it is to be produced (Q83).

[13] There is nothing to suggest that Rueschhoff's objectives for 2015 are relevant and they need not be produced (Q75). The 2016-2018 objectives were produced in error as the defendant believed they were the development plans that A.J. McAfee had ordered produced. The plaintiff has not pointed to anything in those erroneously produced 2016-2018 objectives that would make the 2015 objectives relevant or required for context.

[14] I was not provided with information about question 69 to determine whether it is relevant and it is therefore not ordered to be answered.

[15] The statement of claim puts in issue Rueschhoff's experience and qualifications and the defendant has argued that he had the requisite experience, answering at Q730 (R23) that he "did have an extensive understanding of the Canadian landscape in respect of insurance at the time he became Amalia Costa's boss". Questions 85, 87, 138 and 144 go to his experience and are to be answered. Rueschhoff's HR file was previously requested and denied, so Q139 and Q140 need not be answered. Relevant documents will be provided in the questions I have ordered answered.

[16] While the plaintiff has pleaded that she complained of being bullied, harassed and undermined by Rueschhoff, she has not pleaded he had a history of that behaviour and there is nothing before me to suggest that this was an issue beyond the plaintiff. Questions 154, 156, 159, 160 and refusals 47, 48 and 49 delving into whether there were "management issues" concerning his performance or other complaints about him need not be answered.

Group 3: Harassment Policy

Under Advisement 112

[17] The defendant confirmed that the policy it provided dated 2020 is the same policy that was in place in 2016. The question has now been answered.

Group 4: Strizic's 2016 GP review

Under Advisement 117

[18] The defendant agreed to produce that portion of the file that contained the quote starting "new leader is now in place..." and advise when it was written, if ascertainable.

Group 5: Records for Amalia Costa

Under Advisements 123 and 124

[19] The plaintiff requested production of her employment paper file if it existed. She clarified that she did not intend to limit the request to a paper file, particularly as she had been told that those files were or had been digitized. The defendant agreed to, within 30 days of this decision, produce the paper file or advise that it was not located. It refuses to provide the electronic file as that is not what the plaintiff originally sought. Given the conversion of paper files to electronic files, I do not limit the request to paper files. UAs 123 and 124 shall be answered, whether in paper or electronic copy.

Group 6: Magdalena Rybka's Exit Interview with Former Employee regarding Amalia Costa

Under Advisements 130, 131, 132

[20] The plaintiff raises bad faith conduct on the part of the defendant, pre- and post- her termination. In this grouping, it is alleged that the defendant's HR representative, Rybka, spread a rumour that the plaintiff was terminated because she was racist. Rybka was one of the two HR employees to whom the plaintiff alleges she reported Rueschhoff's bullying and sought help.

[21] There is an email from the plaintiff to Rybka produced by the defendant in its supplementary affidavit of documents. There is no response produced to the email from Rybka to the plaintiff. The defendant advised that it did search for any responding email but was unable to locate one. It is to confirm this in writing. In answer to the question why Rybka said that the plaintiff was a racist, the defendant advised that it told the plaintiff that Rybka did not say that. It is to confirm that in writing and advise where in the record it provided that position. The defendant has agreed to provide a typed version of the notes at tab 25 (Q132).

Group 7: PIVC (Preferred Insurance Vendor Committee)

Under Advisements 145, 146

[22] It is sufficient that the defendant advise if the plaintiff was a member of this committee and Rueschhoff was not. The balance of the questions in this group need not be answered.

Group 8: Conflict of Interest

Under Advisements 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202

[23] A.J. McAfee determined that the specific conflict of interest concerning Jim Whittaker during the relevant period when the plaintiff was employed by the defendant was relevant and ordered an earlier refusal on that issue to be answered. The plaintiff now seeks answers to a series of questions that arose from that answer.

[24] While it is not specifically pleaded, the plaintiff alleges that she was responsible for identifying conflicts of interest for those who reported to her. She alleged that her direct report, Whittaker, had earlier been found in a conflict of interest and she was not advised of that. She argues the defendant acted in bad faith in keeping this information from her and did not support her. Now she seeks production of the entire investigation into that conflict, when the conflict was identified, and information about the outcome including any discipline taken against Whittaker.

[25] Based on the pleadings, when the conflict was identified is relevant as is whether the investigation concluded that Whittaker had a conflict. The remaining questions, including production of the entire investigation file is not relevant or proportionate and need not be produced or answered.

Group 9: The HR Director, Ola Wall's Understanding of HR

Refusals 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 45

[26] The plaintiff pleaded that she advised HR of Rueschhoff's bullying, harassing and undermining behaviour (para 33) but the defendant failed to investigate, or take any steps at all to address, any of the plaintiff's concerns. In the response, the defendant pleaded that "[the plaintiff] never filed or made any formal complaint to Edward Jones and as such no investigation was ever initiated or lawfully required (emphasis added) to be initiated". I find refusals 3, 4, 7 and 10 are relevant based on the pleadings and are to be answered. For question 10, the defendant is to advise whether she understood the defendant had a duty to keep any records beyond what is required by the Employment Standards Act.

[27] Wall's qualifications are relevant and question 45 is to be answered. This is consistent with the earlier decision of McAfee, A.J. which found at paragraph 13 that "asking about Ms. Wall's experiences with workplace bullying and harassment is a proper question". Question 8 concerning her records need not be answered.

Group 10: Sharon Laurie v. Amalia Costa

Refusal 41

[28] This question about Sharon Laurie's remuneration vs the plaintiff's remuneration is not relevant. The many factors that contribute to the setting of an employee's remuneration make the comparison irrelevant. Further, the plaintiff has not pleaded that her salary was not fairly set.

Continued examination of the defendant

[29] The defendant shall answer the questions noted above within 45 days of the date of this decision. The plaintiff is permitted to conduct one further examination of the defendant solely on the answers provided as ordered above and any questions arising from those answers. The examination shall be by zoom unless the parties agree to an in person discovery and shall limited to one hour.

Costs

[30] There has been divided success on the motion. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Associate Justice Jolley

Date: 1 December 2025