Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Vahab Kamranpoor sued United Wire & Cable (Canada) Inc. for wrongful dismissal, bonus entitlement, and emotional and mental distress damages.
• Central to the motion was the proper scope of financial document production from the defendant in advance of discoveries.
• His employment agreement tied his potential annual bonus to 10% of the company's net income before taxes, as shown on its final financial statements.
• Disputed was whether the plaintiff's request for records dating back to 2017 — including tax returns, trial balances, and payroll registers — was proportionate and relevant at this stage.
• Medical record production was also at issue, given the plaintiff's claim that work-related stress caused a medical emergency on or about 4 October 2022 and ultimately led to his resignation.
• Costs submissions remained outstanding as of the date of decision, pending the parties' inability to agree on costs following a prior offer to settle the motion.

Facts of the case

Vahab Kamranpoor was employed as general manager of United Wire & Cable (Canada) Inc. from November 2021 to October 2022. Following the end of his employment, he commenced an action for wrongful dismissal, claiming entitlement to a bonus and damages for emotional and mental distress. In his amended statement of claim, Kamranpoor alleged that the defendant's failure to provide adequate resources took a toll on his physical and mental health and that he began to show clear signs of deterioration. He further alleged that on or about 4 October 2022, he suffered a medical emergency and was taken to hospital by ambulance, where it was determined he was suffering from high levels of work-related anxiety and stress. He pleaded that, on the advice of his physicians and for the sake of his health, he had no choice but to resign. Kamranpoor sought, among other relief, $500,000 in damages for emotional and mental distress.

Contractual clause at issue

The plaintiff's employment agreement provided that he "may be entitled to an annual bonus… in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of Net Income." The agreement defined "Net Income" as, for the relevant fiscal year, the net income of UWC as shown on its final financial statements for such fiscal year, prior to deduction for applicable taxes, assessments, charges, duties, fees, levies, and other deductions and charges of any nature imposed by a governmental authority. This clause was central to the dispute over the scope of financial document production, as the bonus calculation depended directly on the company's net income before taxes as reflected in its final financial statements.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The motion before Associate Justice Jolley concerned the parties' disagreement over the scope of documentary production under a discovery plan. On the financial records issue, the defendant agreed to produce its financial statements for the period 30 September 2021 to 30 September 2024, covering the plaintiff's employment and his claimed 20-month notice period. The plaintiff, supported by a retained accountant, sought a significantly broader range of records dating back to 2017, including corporate income tax returns, notices of assessment and re-assessment, a detailed trial balance sheet, year-end adjusting entries, details of accrued liabilities, and payroll registers. The accountant stated these were necessary to confirm consistent application of accounting principles across periods before, during, and after the plaintiff's employment, and to verify that the financial statements were consistent with the corporate tax returns.

The court found this breadth of disclosure to be disproportionate and irrelevant at the pre-discovery stage. Because the employment agreement tied the bonus to net income before taxes as shown on the defendant's final financial statements, production of those statements — to which the defendant had already agreed — was sufficient at this stage to determine the relevant net income figure. The court further noted there was nothing to suggest the defendant's financial statements, prepared by BDO, had been prepared other than in accordance with applicable accounting principles, or that those principles had been applied inconsistently. The court acknowledged the plaintiff could pursue the wider disclosure requests during examinations for discovery if a foundational basis emerged. On the medical records issue, the plaintiff conceded the records were relevant and did not oppose their production. The defendant sought production of the plaintiff's medical records from 22 November 2020 to 27 June 2024, as well as records related to the emergency room visit on or about 4 October 2022.

Ruling and overall outcome

Associate Justice Jolley ordered the defendant to produce its financial statements for the period 30 September 2021 to 30 September 2024 within 30 days of the date of decision, on confidentiality terms agreed to by the parties. The plaintiff's request for the broader set of financial records was denied at this stage. On the medical records issue, the court made an order consistent with the draft order, which had been signed. The defendant was the substantially successful party on the financial production dispute, having successfully resisted the broader production demands. No monetary damages or costs amounts were ordered in this decision; costs submissions remained outstanding, to be sent to the court by 3 July 2026 if the parties could not agree.