Leach et al. v. Assaly et al., (1998) 81 O.T.C. 313 (GDM)

• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: November 05, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 81 O.T.C. 313 (GDM)

Leach v. Assaly (1998), 81 O.T.C. 313 (GDM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. NO.113

Norm Leach and Fred Barkhouse (plaintiffs) v. Thomas C. Assaly, Assaly Holdings Ltd., Asgo Management Ltd., Thomas C. Assaly Corporation Ltd., Royal Bank of Canada, Ernst and Young, Asgo Investments Limited, Assaly Enterprises Limited, Assaly (International) Inc., Chateau Properties Ltd., Assaly Capital Corporation, Trendsetter Developments Limited, Albion Place Limited, 561287 Ontario Limited, Asset Management Corporation, 688951 Ontario Limited, Davidson, Aboud, Assaly Partnership (defendants)

(Court File No. 89371/95)

Indexed As: Leach et al. v. Assaly et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Beaudoin, Master

November 5, 1998.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant for wrongful dismissal. At the same time, the plaintiffs brought an application against the same defendants for severance pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The defendants sought an exemption from the implied undertaking rule not to use information obtained at discovery for purposes outside that action. Particularly, the defendants wanted to use the transcript from examination for discovery in the wrongful dismissal action at the concurrent Employment Standards Act proceeding.

A Master of the Ontario Court (General Division) allowed the application. The court stated that any injustice the plaintiff could suffer from allowing the application was more than offset by the prejudice the defendants would suffer if they were not exempted from the rule.

Practice - Topic 4157

Discovery - Collateral use of discovery information (implied undertaking rule) - See paragraphs 1 to 11.

Cases Noticed:

Goodman v. Rossi (1995), 83 O.A.C. 38; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 613; 24 O.R.(3d) 359 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

550551 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Framingham et al. (1991), 49 O.A.C. 376; 82 D.L.R.(4th) 731 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Andrew Lister, for the defendant moving party;

Marc Labrosse, for the plaintiff responding party.

This application was heard before Master Beaudoin, of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following decision on November 5, 1998.