Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- Must a Wrongful Dismissal Plaintiff Produce New Employer Documents in Ontario?
- Court / Tribunal
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice
- Citation
- 2026 ONSC 5772 ↗
- Date
- October 19, 2026
- Area of law
- Employment Law
- Key issue
- Whether a wrongful dismissal plaintiff must produce unredacted correspondence from a new employer that is relevant to mitigation of damages, despite a confidentiality clause in that new employment offer.
- Outcome
- The court ordered the plaintiff to produce all relevant unredacted correspondence with the new employer and to pay $25,000 in costs to the defendant.
- Why it matters
- If you are suing for wrongful dismissal, documents from your new employer about your re-employment may be producible in court even if you signed a confidentiality clause.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
In a wrongful dismissal action, a plaintiff must produce all documents in their possession that are relevant to any matter in issue — including correspondence with a new employer that bears on mitigation of damages and post-termination income. A confidentiality clause in an employment offer does not automatically shield those documents from production. The court must be satisfied that the clause protects genuinely sensitive business information such as trade secrets, client lists, or financial data. A clause that simply keeps an employee's own compensation terms private — and even permits sharing with family members and financial advisors — does not meet that bar. The onus falls on the party resisting production to show that redaction is necessary to protect an important interest. Vague or hearsay assertions of harm, without evidence, will not discharge that onus. The deemed undertaking rule — which prevents a party from using produced documents for any purpose outside the litigation — is the ordinary safeguard for commercially sensitive information, and a court will not dispense with production simply because a competitor is on the other side of the lawsuit.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This decision does not mean that every document held by a wrongful dismissal plaintiff is automatically producible. The court's order was limited to documents that are relevant to the specific issues pleaded — here, mitigation of damages and post-termination income. Documents that have no semblance of relevance to the pleadings remain outside the scope of discovery. The decision also does not mean that a new employer's genuinely confidential business information can never be protected. The court distinguished an earlier case where non-party interveners actually appeared and filed evidence of the confidential nature of the documents and the concrete harm that disclosure would cause. Had Cineplex sought standing and provided that evidence, the outcome on proportionality might have differed. The key takeaway is that bare assertions — especially hearsay ones — will not substitute for actual evidence of harm.
Does a wrongful dismissal plaintiff have to hand over documents from a new employer?
Yes, if those documents are relevant to the issues in the lawsuit, a plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action generally must produce them — even if the new employer asked for confidentiality. That is the core finding in Crawford v. Stingray Group Inc., 2026 ONSC 5772 (CanLII), a decision released by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on October 19, 2026.
The case arose from a termination in March 2020. The employee sued for wrongful dismissal. During discovery, the defendant learned that the employee had received an offer of employment from a new employer in the months following termination. The employee produced a heavily redacted version of that offer and refused to produce the attachments or any related correspondence, citing confidentiality.
Why were the new employer’s documents relevant to the wrongful dismissal claim?
The documents were relevant because mitigation of damages and post-termination income are live issues in almost every wrongful dismissal case. The court explained that a wrongful dismissal plaintiff must lead evidence about their losses after being let go. The burden then shifts to the employer to show the employee failed to take reasonable steps to find new work. As the court noted, most of the information needed to assess mitigation is in the plaintiff’s hands, not the defendant’s.
In addition, any income earned after termination is deducted from the damages calculation. Correspondence between the employee and the new employer — including the offer letter and its attachments — was directly relevant to both of those questions. Our Ontario employment lawyers regularly advise clients that mitigation records are among the most scrutinized documents in wrongful dismissal litigation.
Does a confidentiality clause in an employment offer protect documents from production?
Not automatically. The court examined the actual wording of the confidentiality clause the employee relied on. That clause required the employee to keep the terms of their own compensation — salary, bonus, benefits — private, but it expressly allowed disclosure to immediate family and financial advisors. The court found the clause addressed the employee’s personal compensation details, not any proprietary business information belonging to the new employer such as trade secrets, client lists, or financial data.
Because the clause did not protect genuinely sensitive commercial information, it provided no valid basis to resist production. The court also noted that the employee had not yet started work when he received the offer, so there was no contractual relationship in place that could restrict disclosure at that time.
What evidence is needed to successfully resist producing documents on confidentiality grounds?
A party resisting production must provide real evidence — not hearsay — that disclosure would cause concrete harm to an important interest. The court drew a clear contrast with an earlier Ontario decision where non-party companies actually appeared before the court, filed evidence about the sensitive nature of the documents, and demonstrated the harm that production would cause. In that case, the court weighed proportionality and declined to order production.
Here, the new employer was notified that the motion was proceeding but chose not to seek standing or file any evidence. The employee offered only a hearsay statement — relayed through his own affidavit — that a lawyer for the new employer had said some documents were confidential. The court gave that evidence no weight. Vague assertions of competitive harm, without specifics, will not discharge the onus.
Can a plaintiff just tell the defendant to get the documents from the new employer directly?
No. The employee argued that the defendant should bring a separate motion to compel production from the new employer as a non-party. The court rejected that argument. Ontario’s rules of civil procedure require a party to produce all relevant documents in their own possession, control, or power. Because the employee personally held the documents, the rules applied directly to him. A non-party production motion was unnecessary and would have been an additional procedural hurdle with no justification.
The deemed undertaking rule — which prevents a receiving party from using produced documents outside the litigation — was identified as the appropriate safeguard for any commercially sensitive content. The court found no evidence that this protection would be insufficient.
What happened with costs after the defendant won the motion?
The defendant was awarded $25,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by November 30, 2026. The court took into account that the plaintiff had offered shifting and inconsistent reasons for refusing production over the course of the litigation, which required the defendant to bring two separate motions. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s counsel had consented to producing the confidentiality clause on the day of the first hearing — something that should have been conceded earlier, before court time was spent.
Costs awards in discovery motions can be significant. If you are involved in a wrongful dismissal claim, understanding your production obligations early can help avoid unnecessary expense.
Questions and records to discuss with a lawyer
- What correspondence, offers of employment, or income records do you hold from any employer you worked for after your termination?
- Have you signed any confidentiality agreement with a new employer, and if so, what information does it actually protect?
- Has your former employer raised a failure to mitigate as a defence in the pleadings?
- What income, if any, did you earn during the period between your termination and the filing of your claim?
- Are there documents you have redacted before providing to your own lawyer, and on what basis?
If you have questions about your obligations in an Ontario wrongful dismissal claim — or about what documents you may be required to produce — the team at UL Lawyers is available to discuss your circumstances. Reach out through /connect to start the conversation.
This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Mitigation means the fired employee must make reasonable efforts to find new work after being let go. Any income earned from new employment is typically deducted from the damages the former employer owes.
If the contract is relevant to your damages or mitigation, an Ontario court may order you to produce it. A confidentiality clause in the new contract does not automatically prevent production unless it protects genuine business secrets and there is evidence of real harm from disclosure.
The deemed undertaking rule requires that documents produced by one party during litigation can only be used for the purpose of that proceeding. It is designed to protect sensitive information from being misused outside the lawsuit.