2010 ONSC 7181, 2010 ONSC 7181

CITATION : Wilson v. City of Ottawa et al, 2010 ONSC 7181 COURT FILE NO.: 09-45600 DATE MOTION HEARD: 2010/12/21 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Donald W. Wilson & City of Ottawa & Rick O’Connor BEFORE: Master Pierre Roger COUNSEL: Janice Payne, for the Plaintiff Leanne Fisher, for the Defendants REASONS [ 1 ] This motion seeks answers to four questions objected to at discovery. [ 2 ] I have come to the conclusion that they are not proper questions for the following reasons. [ 3 ] Primarily, the affidavit of Mr.

David White convinces me, as indicated at paragraph 4, that the actions of the City regarding this other former employee were informed by legal advice given by the Plaintiff to the City. I accept that the decision was made by the City Manager, as indicated by Mr. Wilson but note that Mr. Wilson does not contradict paragraph 4 of Mr.

White’s affidavit. [ 4 ] This is important because it taints the usefulness of any information relating to this other employee to such an extent that, in my opinion, it cannot be relevant. [ 5 ] Further, this case and circumstances are very different from the circumstances in the Mc Cartney decision. The analysis in Mc Cartney is not applicable to the circumstances of this case. Mc Cartney involved primarily one event, making the information relevant.

This is not such a case. [ 6 ] While a broad inquiry is appropriate and while a court may consider how other employees were disciplined for similar incident, this cannot be the case in these circumstances involving, for each employee, very specific factual circumstances.

Further, this cannot be the case when the Plaintiff, in this action, provided legal advice to the City that informed its decision on how to deal with this other employee. [ 7 ] I am not deciding this motion on the basis of the arguments made by the City relating to solicitor-client privilege but on the basis that this information is not relevant in the circumstances of this case. [ 8 ] Costs of this motion payable to the City of Ottawa by the Plaintiff by February 18, 2011, in the amount of $4,000.00 all inclusive.

I have considered the factors at Rule 57, the costs outline of both parties and have allowed costs on a partial indemnity basis. These costs are only for the part of this motion actually argued (the four questions) and not the rest of the relief sought in the notice of motion which was settled by the parties prior to the return date of this motion. Any costs associated with the parts of this motion not argued are not dealt with by me.

_______________________ Master Pierre Roger DATE: December 23, 2010