Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Disclosure obligations at the discovery stage require broad production of documents relating to matters in issue, guided by the principle of "semblance of relevancy" rather than strict trial admissibility standards.

• Crandall's allegations that Dr. Stackhouse deliberately misled the hiring committee by withholding information about his forced leave and investigation at Regent College are central to both the wrongful dismissal and defamation defences.

• The distinction between relevance for discovery purposes and admissibility at trial means documents may be disclosed even if ultimately inadmissible, provided they bear some connection to pleaded issues.

• Pre-emptive motions to compel answers to specific discovery questions are procedurally improper, as the established Rules of Court require questions to be asked and refused on the record before judicial intervention is available.

• Dr. Stackhouse's conduct at his former employer, including sexual harassment findings and the circumstances of his departure, is directly relevant to determining whether Crandall's characterization of him as a "repeat offender" in defamatory statements has factual foundation.

• The failure to comply with service requirements and the premature nature of attempting to resolve discovery disputes before the examination has occurred provide independent grounds for dismissing attempts to compel pre-examination answers.

The Employment Dispute and Disclosure Motion

Dr. John Gordon Stackhouse Jr. and Sarah-Jane Britton initiated legal proceedings against Crandall University, a Christian-based educational institution, alleging wrongful dismissal and defamation following Dr. Stackhouse's termination on November 22, 2023. The termination letter cited findings from an external investigation conducted by Joël Michaud, K.C., completed on November 15, 2023, which concluded that Dr. Stackhouse had engaged in behaviour constituting sexual harassment of a female member of the Crandall University community. The decision before Justice Christa Bourque of the Court of King's Bench of New Brunswick addressed a motion brought by Crandall University seeking additional document disclosure and compulsory discovery answers from Dr. Stackhouse concerning his departure from his former employer, Regent College.

Background and Employment History

Dr. Stackhouse commenced employment with Crandall University in 2015, following his prior tenure at Regent College. During his initial application for the Crandall position in late 2014 and early 2015, Dr. Stackhouse was on a forced leave of absence from Regent College arising from complaints about his conduct and was subject to an ongoing investigation. Crucially, he failed to disclose these circumstances to Crandall's interviewing committee. The Michaud investigation report found it "more likely than not that, directly or by omission," Dr. Stackhouse "deliberately misled the interviewing committee of Crandall." When directly questioned during the investigation about whether he had been the subject of a sexual harassment complaint at Regent, Dr. Stackhouse declined to answer, stating, "I do not see how it's in my interest to answer the question." The investigation further concluded that there were complaints from students, or at least one student complaint, at Regent alleging misconduct that contributed to the end of his employment there.

Crandall's Defence and Claims in Issue

Crandall University's defence to the wrongful dismissal claim expanded beyond the sexual harassment finding cited in the termination letter to include allegations concerning the hiring process. In its Amended Statement of Defence, Crandall alleged that Dr. Stackhouse engaged in "deliberately misleading or withholding information when hired by Crandall about the circumstances of his departure from his former employment with Regent College." The University asserted that at the time of his application, Dr. Stackhouse was on a leave of absence and under investigation at Regent, which he failed to disclose, and that he assured the interviewing committee there were no issues with his former employer. Crandall argued these omissions constituted misconduct justifying cause for termination. Additionally, the plaintiffs' defamation claim alleged that Crandall published statements on its website suggesting Dr. Stackhouse was a "recalcitrant and repeat offender, having been previously terminated for the same misconduct at another school" and that he "deliberately misled the interviewing committee of Crandall University when applying for employment." Crandall's defence to the defamation claim was justification, asserting that the statements made were true and that it must be permitted to prove the truth of these allegations to defend against the defamation claim.

The Procedural Motions and Discovery Issues

Crandall filed its initial Notice of Motion on September 27, 2024, requesting an order for Dr. Stackhouse to provide a further and better Affidavit of Documents. This request specifically included listing documents once in Dr. Stackhouse's possession but no longer held (Schedule "C") and identifying individuals who might possess relevant documents (Schedule "D"), all relating to his departure from Regent College. Subsequently, Crandall filed an Amended Notice of Motion on October 31, 2025, just five days before the hearing, introducing a new request: that the Court order Dr. Stackhouse to answer questions during examination for discovery about his departure from Regent and the investigation prompting it. The plaintiffs opposed both motions, arguing that the requested documents and questions were irrelevant and constituted a "fishing expedition" seeking collateral or disparaging information beyond the scope of the litigation. They maintained they had already produced the only documents in their possession concerning Dr. Stackhouse's departure from Regent—namely, the settlement agreement and release. The plaintiffs further argued that whether Dr. Stackhouse "deliberately misled the interviewing committee" must be determined solely by reference to communications during the hiring process between November 2014 and January 2015, and that no affirmative duty exists for a job applicant to volunteer information about a leave of absence or investigation unless specifically asked. Regarding the wrongful dismissal claim, the plaintiffs contended that Crandall could not rely on alleged misrepresentation as a basis for just cause because the termination letter cited only sexual harassment as the reason for dismissal. They also submitted that the request to compel discovery answers was premature and procedurally improper, as the Rules of Court require that a refusal to answer must first occur and be recorded before a motions judge may rule on the propriety of a question.

Legal Analysis and Relevance Standards

Justice Bourque undertook a detailed analysis of the law governing document disclosure in the discovery process. The Court noted that Rule 31.02(1) of the Rules of Court requires each party to disclose all documents in its possession or control, and Rule 31.03 requires full disclosure of every document relating to a matter in issue, regardless of whether it assists that party's position. The threshold question is whether documents sought relate to a matter in issue, which is determined by reference to the pleadings. The Court cited the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Babineau et al. v. Crossman et al., 2025 NBCA 71, affirming that the determination of relevance must be guided by the pleadings and that the threshold at the discovery stage remains deliberately low—only a "semblance of relevancy" is required to ensure full and fair pre-trial disclosure. A document must be reasonably capable of containing information that could assist the requesting party in advancing its case or damaging that of its opponent. The Court emphasized that while the broad standard applied by courts is intentionally expansive, it is not without limits. The semblance of relevance test does not authorize limitless discovery or speculative fishing expeditions. As Justice Glennie cautioned in Agnew et al v. The New Brunswick Telephone Company, 2002 NBQB 179, "semblance of relevancy is not a blanket license to require production of each and every document that might possibly have a glimmer of relevancy to the plaintiff's theory of the case."

Analysis of Wrongful Dismissal Relevance

Addressing the wrongful dismissal claim, the Court considered that Dr. Stackhouse had sued Crandall for wrongful dismissal arising from the November 22, 2023 termination, purportedly for cause. The termination letter advised that the decision was based on findings that Dr. Stackhouse had engaged in behaviour constituting sexual harassment of a female member of Crandall University. However, the termination letter stated that employment was being terminated "on the basis of the findings of Joel Michaud, as set out in the Confidential Report dated November 15, 2023," and this reference was preceded by the phrase "among other things," suggesting the termination incorporated all findings in the Michaud Report, including conclusions about Dr. Stackhouse's prior conduct at Regent. The Court determined that while it is ultimately a question for the trial judge whether Crandall may rely on grounds for dismissal beyond those expressly stated in the termination letter, at the discovery stage the inquiry is far more narrow. The Court's task is only to determine whether documents sought meet the semblance of relevancy threshold. Because the pleadings clearly disclose that Crandall relies on multiple grounds for termination, including the allegation that Dr. Stackhouse failed to disclose his employment status at Regent College, any documents bearing on those circumstances are relevant for purposes of discovery, regardless of whether they may ultimately be admissible or relied upon at trial.

Analysis of Defamation Relevance

With respect to the defamation claim, the Court examined whether the circumstances of Dr. Stackhouse's departure from Regent College are relevant to Crandall's justification defence. The plaintiffs alleged that Crandall published defamatory statements suggesting Dr. Stackhouse was a "repeat offender" who engaged in similar misconduct at another school and that he deliberately misled the interviewing committee. Crandall's defence of justification requires that it be permitted to explore whether there is factual foundation for those statements—specifically, whether Dr. Stackhouse had previously engaged in similar misconduct at Regent College and whether he failed to disclose relevant information about his employment status there when applying to Crandall. The Court concluded that the truth or falsehood of these assertions is central to the defamation claim and that any documents bearing on the nature of the Regent investigation, the circumstances of Dr. Stackhouse's departure, or the representations he made about it are directly relevant under the semblance of relevancy test. These materials may enable Crandall to advance its defence of justification and are therefore properly subject to disclosure at the discovery stage. Having reviewed the pleadings and applicable legal principles, the Court was satisfied that the circumstances surrounding Dr. Stackhouse's departure from Regent College are relevant to the issues in dispute and must be disclosed.

Procedural Issues with Compulsory Discovery Answers

Concerning the motion to compel discovery answers, the Court accepted the submissions of Dr. Stackhouse's counsel and concluded that the motion was premature and could not properly be determined at that stage. The procedure for dealing with refusals to answer questions at an examination for discovery is clearly set out in Rule 33.10 of the Rules of Court, which requires that when a question is refused, the court reporter must record the question, the grounds for the refusal, and counsel's statement in support of the question. It is this record that must be placed before a motions judge for adjudication. Since no examination for discovery had yet taken place, Dr. Stackhouse had not had an opportunity to answer or object to the specific questions Crandall proposed to ask. Without that record, the Court had no proper evidentiary foundation upon which to rule. Judicial intervention is available only after questions have been put and refused on the record. The defendant provided no authority supporting pre-emptive motions of this nature. Additionally, the Amended Notice of Motion, which first raised the request to compel discovery answers, was served only five days before the hearing, contravening Rule 37.04(5) of the Rules of Court, which requires service at least ten days in advance. This failure to comply with service requirements provided an additional and independent ground for dismissing this portion of the motion.

Outcome and Costs

The Court ordered that the plaintiffs produce a further and better Affidavit of Documents listing all documents in their possession or control, or which they believe to be in the possession of a non-party, relating to Dr. Stackhouse's leave of absence and departure from Regent College and the circumstances leading up to that departure. This further Affidavit was to be produced prior to the examination for discovery scheduled for November 24 to 26, 2025. The motion to compel Dr. Stackhouse to respond to questions during discovery about his departure from Regent was dismissed entirely. Despite partial success by both parties, the Court awarded costs of $750 against the plaintiffs in favour of Crandall University for their failure to disclose clearly relevant information, which made the motion necessary. The successful party in this interlocutory motion was Crandall University, which obtained the principal relief sought—an order requiring further document disclosure—though it was unsuccessful in its attempt to compel pre-examination discovery answers. The total monetary award was $750 in costs payable to Crandall University.