Right to follow up discovery always subject to court’s overriding discretion to make such order as it deemed fit

Employer hired employee as chief revenue officer, but employer's parent company acted as first guarantor for unpaid and deferred salary and expenses . Employer's chief executive officer (CEO) agreed to be second guarantor when first guarantor experienced financial issues . Employee was dismissed due to financial issues . Employee successfully sued for breach of contract and was awarded damages for unpaid salary and unpaid expenses against both guarantors, plus contractual separation payment and unpaid vacation pay against first guarantor . CEO paid judgment as second guarantor . Employee conducted examination in aid of execution against non-party G, as debtor of first guarantor . Employee unsuccessfully brought motions to compel first guarantor and non-party to answer undertakings given at examination and for order that non-party D attend at examination in aid of execution . Employee appealed. Appeal dismissed. Right to follow up discover was not absolute right and it was always subject to court’s overriding discretion to make such order as it deemed fit. It was open to Master under Rule 60.18(6) of Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure to determine that it was not in interests of justice to draw what appears like unprincipled line between undertakings answered voluntarily and undertakings answered by court order. Master considered it to be abuse of the examination process for employee to seek court order to compel answers withheld, when at the same time employee sought to use those answers collaterally on basis that they were purely voluntary. There was no error in Master’s decision to decline employee’s request to compel answers to undertakings.

Perry v. Mass Fidelity Inc. (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 2295, 2019 ONSC 1134, E.M. Morgan J. (Ont. S.C.J.); affirmed (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 19388, 2018 ONSC 6890, Master Graham (Ont. S.C.J.).