Goodman v. Rossi, (1995) 83 O.A.C. 38 (CA)

• Judge: Morden, A.C.J.O., Osborne and Laskin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: June 27, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1995), 83 O.A.C. 38 (CA);1995 CanLII 1888 (NS CA);1995 CanLII 1888 (ON CA);24 OR (3d) 359;125 DLR (4th) 613;[1995] OJ No 1906 (QL);12 CCEL (2d) 105;37 CPC (3d) 181;56 ACWS (3d) 267;83 OAC 38

Goodman v. Rossi (1995), 83 O.A.C. 38 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Irene Goodman (plaintiff/respondent) v. David J. Rossi (defendant/appellant)

(No. C21173)

Indexed As: Goodman v. Rossi

Ontario Court of Appeal

Morden, A.C.J.O., Osborne and Laskin, JJ.A.

June 27, 1995.

Summary:

Goodman sued her employer for damages for wrongful dismissal. The employer pro­duced documents that included a government report. The report was entitled "Employer's Report on Employee's conduct while in employ". Goodman considered that the report was defamatory and she sued the employer for damages for defamation. The employer moved for dismissal of the defa­mation action because the report could not be used in the defamation action. The employer submitted that there was an implied undertaking by Goodman that the report would only be used in the wrongful dis­missal action.

The trial judge refused to dismiss the defamation action. The employer appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the "implied undertaking rule" was not part of the law of Ontario - see 75 O.A.C. 331. The employer appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and stayed Goodman's defamation action. The court held that the "implied undertaking rule" was part of the law of Ontario.

Practice - Topic 4157

Discovery - General principles - Colla­teral use of discovery information (implied undertaking rule) - An employee sued her employer for defa­mation based on a gov­ernment report that the employer produced in discovery pro­ceedings in a prior action - The employer moved to dismiss the defamation action arguing that the report could only be used in the action in which it was produced (the implied under­taking rule) - The Ontario Court of Appeal stayed the defamation action - The court held that the implied undertaking rule was part of the law of Ontario.

Practice - Topic 4157

Discovery - General principles - Colla­teral use of discovery information (implied undertaking rule) - What is an improper use of documents obtained on discovery? -The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that a person who obtains documents during discovery must not "make use of the doc­uments for any purpose other than the proper conduct of the litigation in the course of which the order [for discovery] was made" (see paragraphs 47 to 49).

Practice - Topic 4157

Discovery - General principles - Colla­teral use of discovery information (implied undertaking rule) - Relief from application of the rule - An employee sued her employer for defa­mation based on a gov­ernment report that the employer produced in discovery pro­ceedings in a prior action - The employer moved to dismiss the defamation action arguing that the report could only be used in the action in which it was produced - The Ontario Court of Appeal stayed the defamation action and dismissed the employee's application for relief from the implied undertaking rule - The court stated the criteria for grant­ing relief from the implied undertak­ing rule (see para­graphs 59 to 70).

Cases Noticed:

Lac Minerals Ltd. v. New Cinch Uranium Ltd. et al. (1985), 50 O.R.(2d) 260 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Kyuquot Logging Ltd. v. British Columbia Forest Products Ltd. (1986), 30 D.L.R.(4th) 65 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hunt v. Atlas Turner Inc. et al. (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 94; 96 W.A.C. 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canada v. ICHI Canada Ltd., [1992] 1 F.C. 571; 49 F.T.R. 254 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Williams v. Prince of Wales Life etc., Co. (1857), 23 Beav. 338; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 55, refd to. [para. 18].

Reynolds v. Godlee (1858), 4 K. & J. 88, refd to. [para. 19].

Hopkinson v. Burghley (Lord) (1861), L.R. 2 Ch. 447, refd to. [para. 21].

Lindsey v. Le Sueur (1913), 29 O.L.R. 648 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Marcel v. Commissioner of Police of Metropolis, [1992] Ch. 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Alterskye v. Scott, [1948] 1 All E.R. 469 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Riddick v. Thames Board Mills, [1977] 3 W.L.R. 63; [1977] Q.B. 881 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Prudential Assurance Co. v. Fountain Page Ltd., [1991] 1 W.L.R. 756 (Q.B.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Reichmann et al. v. Toronto Life Publish­ing Co. et al. (1988), 28 C.P.C.(2d) 11 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

National Gypsum Co. v. Dorrell (1989), 68 O.R.(2d) 689 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

755568 Ontario Ltd. v. Linchris Homes Ltd. (1990), 1 O.R.(3d) 649 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1992), 7 O.R.(3d) 489 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Carbone v. De La Rocha (1993), 13 O.R.(3d) 355 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Walker v. York Finch Hospital (1993), 15 C.P.C.(3d) 23 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Rivait v. Gaudry (1993), 15 O.R.(3d) 159 (Gen. Div.), revd. (1994), 18 O.R.(3d) 548 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

Hedley v. Air Canada (1994), 23 C.P.C.(3d) 352 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Madeleine Mines Ltd. v. New Golden Sceptre Minerals Ltd., [1994] O.J. No. 562 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Jansen v. Richardson Greenshields of Canada, [1994] O.J. No. 1055 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Miller (Ed) Sales & Rentals Ltd. v. Cater­pillar Tractor Co. et al. (1986), 72 A.R. 354; 43 Alta. L.R.(2d) 299 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Hamilton and Malm v. Alberta (Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services) et al., [1991] 5 W.W.R. 232; 118 A.R. 267 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Wirth Ltd. v. Acadia Pipe & Supply Corp. et al. (1991), 113 A.R. 298; 50 C.P.C.(2d) 273 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Laxton Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Lloyd's of London, Non-Marine Underwriters et al., [1987] 3 W.W.R. 570; 56 Sask.R. 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Laxton Holdings Ltd. v. Madill - see Laxton Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Lloyd's of London, Non-Marine Underwriters et al.

Blake v. Hudson's Bay Co., [1988] 1 W.W.R. 176 (Man. Q.B., Referee), refd to. [para. 38].

D.F. v. Gupta, [1993] M.J. No. 491 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 38].

Rocca Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. University Press of New Brunswick Ltd. and Crowther (1989), 103 N.B.R.(2d) 224; 259 A.P.R. 224 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Agnew et al. v. Dow Chemical Co. et al. (1991), 117 N.B.R.(2d) 258; 295 A.P.R. 258; 1 C.P.C.(3d) 264 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Thomson v. Byrne et al. (1992), 113 N.S.R.(2d) 149; 309 A.P.R. 149 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Control Data Canada Ltd. v. Senstar Corp., [1988] 3 F.C. 439 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Lubrizol Corp. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 325; 39 F.T.R. 43 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Home Office v. Harman, [1982] 1 All E.R. 532 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 47].

Ray v. Port Arthur, Duluth and Western Railway Co. (1903), 2 O.W.R. 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

McKinnon v. Gillard (1907), 9 O.W.R. 77, refd to. [para. 56].

New Augarita Porcupine Mines Ltd. v. Gray, [1953] O.W.N. 24, refd to. [para. 56].

Crest Homes v. Marks, [1987] 2 All E.R. 1074 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 62].

Statutes Noticed:

Ontario Judicature Act, 1881, 44 Vict., c. 5, rule 222 [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bray, E., The Principles and Practices of Discovery (1885), pp. 238, 239 [para. 20].

Canada, Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Dis­closure, and Resolution Discussions, Report of (1993), pp. 175, 179 to 183 [para. 31].

Eagles, Ian, Disclosures of Material Obtained on Discovery (1984), 47 Mod. L. Rev. 284, p. 301 [para. 55].

Hare, A Treatise on the Discovery of Evidence (2nd Ed. 1876), p. 268 [para. 21].

Holmes, O.W., Jr., The Path of the Law (1897), 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, p. 461 [para. 30].

Holmestead and Gale, The Judicature Act of Ontario and Rules of Practice (1983), pp. 1786.36 [para. 28]; 1813 [para. 27].

Laskin, John B., The Implied Undertaking (1991), Canadian Bar Association - Ontario, Continuing Legal Education, pp. 19 to 21 [para. 53].

Laskin, John B., The Implied Undertaking in Ontario (1990), 11 Advocate's Q. 298, generally [para. 16].

Matthews and Malek, Discovery (1992), pp. 253 [para. 29]; 312 [para. 54].

Taylor and Ewart, The Judicature Act and Rules 1881 (1881), generally [para. 22].

Vaver, David, Keeping Secrets, Civilly Speaking (1992), 13 Advocate's Q. 334, p. 341 [para. 24].

Watson, Garry D., and McGowan, Michael, Annual Survey of Recent De­velopments in Civil Procedure, Ontario Civil Practice (1992-93), pp, cvi-cxi [para. 16].

Williston, W.B., and Rolls, R.J., The Law of Civil Procedure (1970), p. 941 [para. 26].

Wright-Miller-Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedures (2nd Ed. 1994), vol. 8, pp. 542 to 556 [para. 42].

Counsel:

J. David Sloan, for the appellant;

William R. Maxwell, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 13, 1995, before Morden, A.C.J.O., Osborne and Laskin, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On June 27, 1995, Morden, A.C.J.O., delivered the following judgment for the court.