550551 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Framingham et al., (1991) 46 O.A.C. 156 (DC)

JudgeMcKeown, J.
CourtOntario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 31, 1991
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(1991), 46 O.A.C. 156 (DC)

550551 Ont. Ltd. v. Framingham (1991), 46 O.A.C. 156 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of an Order to Pay dated June 18, 1990, issued by R.R. Framingham of the Ontario Ministry of Labour Employment Standards Branch pursuant to clause 47(1) of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 137, as amended.

550551 Ontario Limited, Bauhaus Designs Canada Limited, Bauhaus South Inc., National Chesterfield Frames Limited, Bauhaus America Inc., Kings-Wood Frames Mfg. Corporation and Martin Silver (applicants) v. R.R. Framingham, Penny Dutton, Director of Employment Standards, The Minister of Labour for Ontario and The United Steelworkers of America (respondents)

(29/91)

Indexed As: 550551 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Framingham et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

McKeown, J.

February 1, 1991.

Summary:

An employment standards officer (Framingham) made an order under s. 47 of the Employment Standards Act, following an investigation into severance pay and termination pay allegedly owing to the employees of Bilt-Rite Upholstering Ltd. During the investigation the firm of Ernst & Young was retained by the Ministry of Labour to provide forensic evidence. Ernst & Young produced a report upon which the employment standards officer relied in making his decision. On judicial review of the decision, the applicants sought to obtain production of the notes made by Ernst & Young during the preparation of the report. A judge of the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application and held that Ernst & Young was not required to produce for inspection its file relating to the matters in issue in the application.

Practice - Topic 4555

Discovery - Documents - Production and inspection of - What constitutes a document - During an investigation into severance pay and termination pay allegedly owing to employees, Ernst & Young produced a report for the Ministry of Labour, which was relied upon by the employment standards officer in making his decision - The applicants sought to obtain the notes made by Ernst & Young during the preparation of the report - Ernst & Young was not obliged to provide the Ministry with its notes - A judge of the Ontario Divisional Court held that accordingly the notes were not documents subject to production under rule 30.04(5) - See paragraph 2.

Practice - Topic 4601

Discovery - Documents - Production of documents by nonparties - General - Rule 30.10(1) provided for production of documents in the possession, control or power of a nonparty - A judge of the Ontario Divisional Court held that rule 30.10(1) did not apply to applications - See paragraphs 4 to 7.

Practice - Topic 4603

Discovery - Documents - Production of documents by nonparties - Jurisdiction - Rule 30.10(1) provided for production of documents by nonparties - A judge of the Ontario Divisional Court held that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the production of documents from a nonparty to an application, except in the clearest of circumstances when an injustice would otherwise be done - The court noted that the documents in the case at bar might be available from another source and it would not be unfair to the party seeking production to proceed without the documents - See paragraphs 8 to 13.

Cases Noticed:

McPherson v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia (1987), 15 B.L.L.R.(2d) 44, refd to. [para. 7].

Couto v. Toronto Transit Commission (1987), 59 O.R.(2d) 406, refd to. [para. 8].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 30.04(5) [para. 2]; rule 30.10 [paras. 4, 6-7, 12]; rule 30.10(1) [paras. 1, 3-5]; rule 39 [para. 6].

Counsel:

David C. Rosenbaum, for the applicants;

Wendy Matheson, for the respondents, R.R. Framingham, Penny Dutton, Director of Employment Standards and The Minister of Labour for Ontario;

Michael Thompson, for Ernst & Young.

This application was heard before McKeown, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court on January 31, 1991, whose decision was delivered orally and released on February 1, 1991.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Stein et al. v. Thames Bend Hybrids Inc. et al., (1998) 133 Man.R.(2d) 152 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • October 28, 1998
    ...the order that the Keystone companies produce the requested documents. Cases Noticed: 550551 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Framingham et al. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 156; 2 O.R.(3d) 284 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. McPherson v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia (1987), 15 B.C.L.R.(2d)......
  • Hilltop Group Ltd. et al. v. Katana et al., (1997) 29 O.T.C. 51 (GD)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
    • March 5, 1997
    ...of documents by nonparties - When ordered - See paragraphs 4 to 10. Cases Noticed: 550551 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Framingham et al. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 156; 2 O.R.(3d) 284 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Ontario (Attorney General) et al. v. Stavro et al. (1995), 86 O.A.C. 43; 26 O.R.(3d) 39 (C.A.)......
2 cases
  • Stein et al. v. Thames Bend Hybrids Inc. et al., (1998) 133 Man.R.(2d) 152 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • October 28, 1998
    ...the order that the Keystone companies produce the requested documents. Cases Noticed: 550551 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Framingham et al. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 156; 2 O.R.(3d) 284 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. McPherson v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia (1987), 15 B.C.L.R.(2d)......
  • Hilltop Group Ltd. et al. v. Katana et al., (1997) 29 O.T.C. 51 (GD)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
    • March 5, 1997
    ...of documents by nonparties - When ordered - See paragraphs 4 to 10. Cases Noticed: 550551 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Framingham et al. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 156; 2 O.R.(3d) 284 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Ontario (Attorney General) et al. v. Stavro et al. (1995), 86 O.A.C. 43; 26 O.R.(3d) 39 (C.A.)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT