Privilege — Ontario Employment Law

B. v The Bank of Nova Scotia

B. v Bank of Nova Scotia: Privilege in Employment Docs

This is an interlocutory motion concerning document production in an employment dispute where the plaintiff challenged the defendant's claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over workplace investigation documents. The court addressed whether common interest privilege applied and affirmed the defendant's search efforts, while deferring costs to avoid halting the litigation.

Correct Group Inc. v. C.

This case involves procedural motions regarding adjournments and solicitor and client privilege within the context of a wrongful dismissal dispute concerning reasonable notice.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd.

OH&S Prosecution: Disclosure and Privilege Ruling

This is a procedural ruling in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace fatality. The court addressed motions for disclosure of disciplinary records and solicitor-client communications, finding that privilege was upheld and disclosure denied. The court also rejected Charter delay and abuse of process arguments, refusing to stay the proceedings.

B. v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario

Wrongful Dismissal: Privilege and Retaliation Dispute

This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a wrongful dismissal claim where the plaintiff alleged termination was in reprisal for raising concerns about a toxic work environment. The court addressed whether the plaintiff improperly used confidential documents obtained anonymously and determined that the Law Society of Ontario Rules of Professional Conduct did not bind the plaintiff as a client.

R. v. LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Constructive Dismissal: Privilege in Workplace Investigation

This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning discovery disputes in a constructive dismissal and workplace harassment case brought by a psychiatrist against a hospital and university. The court applied the Wigmore test to determine whether privilege protected the identities of individuals interviewed during a workplace investigation, ultimately rejecting the privilege claim to ensure fairness in litigation.

G. v. Habitat for Humanity Greater Toronto Inc.

Gu v Habitat: Disclosure in Discrimination Case

This is an interlocutory motion regarding disclosure obligations in a wrongful dismissal and discrimination case. The plaintiff sought additional documents related to her termination, hiring of a replacement, and alleged discriminatory withholding of salary increases and bonuses. The court addressed claims of solicitor-client and settlement privilege, ultimately upholding privilege where applicable and ordering disclosure for the rationale behind salary increase decisions while dismissing the bonus claim due to lack of evidence.

E. v HONDA CANADA

Overtime Pay: Limitation Periods and Privilege Disputes

This case addresses procedural and evidentiary disputes in an employment standards action regarding retroactive overtime pay claims dating back to 1997. Key issues include whether the claim is statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, the applicability of discoverability principles, and the production of privileged documents and witness statements.

M. v T. Smith Engineering

Constructive Dismissal: Removal of Counsel Motion

This is an interlocutory motion concerning the removal of counsel and privilege disputes in a case involving constructive dismissal and indemnity agreements. The court addressed whether counsel should be removed due to alleged conflicts of interest and whether documents from a joint litigation file were privileged. The motions to remove counsel were dismissed, and leave to amend pleadings was granted in part.

PowerServe Inc. v. Ontario College of Trades

This judicial review application challenges the impartiality of the Chair of the Electrician Ratio Review Panel, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the Chair's prior professional representation of a union party. The court also addressed whether a summons to the Chair for examination was relevant and protected by solicitor-client privilege.

H. v. London(City)

Wrongful Dismissal: Privilege Rejected for Investigation Report

This is an interlocutory motion regarding the disclosure of documents in a wrongful dismissal case brought by a former employee against the City of London. The plaintiff sought production of an external investigation report, while the employer claimed solicitor-client and litigation privilege. The court rejected the privilege claims, finding the investigation was not conducted for legal advice or the dominant purpose of litigation, but ordered redaction of personal and health information to comply with privacy legislation.

L. v. Toronto Police Services Board

Leave to Appeal Dismissed: Criminal Record Disclosure

This is a motion for leave to appeal in a case where the applicant alleged that a police officer disclosed his criminal record, leading to his termination. The applicant sought to challenge a decision upholding the striking of privileged information from the statement of claim, arguing that documents from the public complaint process under the Police Services Act were privileged. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the applicant did not meet the onerous test for leave.

R. v. CIBC Mortgages Inc.

Workplace Discrimination: Discovery & Privilege Dispute

This interlocutory proceeding addressed discovery disputes in a wrongful dismissal case involving allegations of racial discrimination. The court declined to strike the defendant's statement of defence for non-compliance but ordered further compliance with discovery obligations, including revising the affidavit of documents and providing additional information regarding witness interviews.

K. v. Brantford

Wrongful Dismissal: Striking Pleadings & Privilege

This is an interlocutory proceeding in a wrongful dismissal action where the court addressed several procedural motions. The court considered whether to strike claims for defamation, intentional interference with contractual relations, and human rights violations for lack of cause or particularity, and whether to order pre-pleading production of a confidential report and personnel file. Additionally, the court evaluated a motion to strike portions of the statement of claim for prolixity and irrelevance.

S. v. Honda of Canada Inc.

This is an interlocutory procedural ruling concerning discovery disputes in an employment law case. The court addressed the plaintiff's requests for answers to refused questions, the sufficiency of the employer's affidavit of documents, and the disclosure of witness availability, applying relevant rules of civil procedure and privilege principles.

R. v. Bruce Power Inc.

R. v. Bruce Power Inc.: Privilege and Stay in OHSA Charges

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice setting aside a stay of proceedings in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. An employee of a subcontractor was injured, and the employer created an internal investigation report protected by solicitor-client privilege. The Crown obtained the report, and the trial justice of the peace stayed the charges, but the summary conviction appeal judge reversed this. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the stay of proceedings, finding that prejudice to the defence is presumed when the Crown improperly obtains privileged documents and the Crown failed to rebut it.

P. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)

P. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order of the Divisional Court ordering the production of a legal opinion. The employee, C.P., sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to deal with her complaint against Sears Canada Inc. The Divisional Court held that a legal opinion provided to the Commission by its in-house counsel was not protected by solicitor-client privilege because the Commission was not adverse in interest to the complainant. The Court of Appeal allowed the Commission's appeal, holding that the legal opinion was protected by solicitor-client privilege, rejecting the lower courts' reliance on a New Brunswick decision.

Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) v. Ontario (Human Rights Board of Inquiry)

Human Rights Disclosure: Duty of Fairness & Stinchcombe

This judicial review addresses whether the duty of fairness in human rights proceedings requires the disclosure of investigative materials, such as witness statements, to respondents. The Divisional Court applied principles from R. v. Stinchcombe to ensure fairness and eliminate surprise, while balancing the respondents' right to know the case against the complainants' privacy and the risk of discouraging complaints.