The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has granted a motion ordering a former executive of 1555638 Ontario Inc., operating as Framatome Canada Ltd., to return hundreds of company documents that he retained following his termination.
The ruling also requires the executive to produce a comprehensive list of all files in his possession, attend a further cross-examination at his expense, and cover Framatome Canada’s legal costs.
Justice Frank’s decision stems from an ongoing dispute between Framatome Canada and W.C., who was terminated in November 2020. Following his departure, W.C. retained about 900 documents from his company-issued laptop, which he later returned in March 2022 after negotiations with Framatome Canada’s legal counsel. The company contends that his retention of these documents violates his fiduciary obligations and confidentiality agreement, while W.C. argues that he retained the files under an agreement allowing their use solely for ongoing litigation.
According to the court’s ruling, W.C. must, within 30 days, “disclose and produce for inspection to Framatome Canada the approximately 900 Framatome Canada documents” retained after his termination. He is also ordered to “disclose and produce for inspection…a list of all files from Framatome Canada retained in his possession, including file names and dates thereof,” Justice Frank wrote in the decision.
Claim and counterclaim
Framatome Canada’s application for the return of these documents first emerged amid a broader legal dispute that began in late 2020, when W.C. filed a Small Claims Court action against the company to recover alleged outstanding business expenses. Framatome Canada responded with a counterclaim seeking the return of the laptop and all company property. The matter escalated in December 2021, when W.C. initiated a wrongful dismissal lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, targeting Framatome Canada and affiliated companies in the United States, Germany, and France. Framatome Canada has since lodged a pro forma defence, indicating plans to amend its claims.
The key issues before the court centred on whether W.C. must disclose and return the retained documents, whether Framatome Canada’s motion constituted an abuse of process, and whether W.C. should bear the costs of his re-examination. The court found that the documents W.C. retained are relevant to the litigation, noting that his affidavits included “numerous statements about Framatome Canada documents that he has retained and which he asserts are relevant to the Employment Action.”
In his decision, Justice Frank referenced principles laid out in Ontario v. Rothmans, which stipulates that relevancy in cross-examinations is determined by the matters at issue and the deponent’s statements. The judge found that, under these criteria, Framatome Canada is entitled to access the documents W.C. referenced in his affidavits. “Framatome Canada is not required to accept (his) evidence denying that the documents he has retained are not Privileged Communications or Third Party Communications,” the decision states.
Court rejects abuse of process claim
W.C. argued that the motion was an abuse of process, asserting that Framatome Canada aimed to increase the litigation’s cost and complexity and gain access to documents for a pre-pleading defence strategy. However, Justice Frank rejected these claims, stating that the company’s request aligns with procedural rules. “To the extent that this increases the cost or complexity of this or other proceedings, that is an ordinary aspect of litigation that will be dealt with as part of the relevant proceedings,” the ruling says.
In addition to granting Framatome Canada’s request for document disclosure and inspection, the court also ordered W.C. to reattend for cross-examination at his own expense and to pay Framatome Canada’s legal costs, which were fixed at $27,000. The ruling allows Framatome Canada to amend its notice of application, facilitating its ongoing pursuit of a permanent order for the recovery of its property.
For more information, see 1555638 Ontario Inc. o/a Framatome Canada Corp v. Cooper, 2024 ONSC 5445 (CanLII).
