Nunavut employee wins disclosure orders, not advance dismissal ruling

A former Nunavut government employee obtained targeted disclosure orders and $2,463.09 in discovery costs, but failed to secure advance rulings on central issues in her wrongful-dismissal lawsuit.

In Dr. Janet Haynes v. The Government of Nunavut, 2026 NUCJ 21, issued August 24, 2026, Justice F. Alibhai distinguished matters needed to prepare the case from questions that belonged to the trial judge.

The Nunavut Court of Justice ordered the government to verify a collective agreement’s completeness, conduct a focused search for hiring-list meeting notes and provide records showing where information had been redacted. It did not decide whether Haynes had been wrongfully dismissed.

Competing agreements remained relevant

Haynes worked as a child-and-family-services supervisor from January 4 to May 11, 2016, when her employment ended during a probationary period. She filed her wrongful-dismissal claim in March 2018 and amended it in March 2025.

Her motion sought nine forms of relief, including a ruling that the 2016 collective agreement governed the disputed employment terms. The government maintained that the earlier agreement continued during renewal negotiations and that most provisions of the newer agreement took effect only when it was signed.

Alibhai declined to settle that dispute. This was not a summary-judgment motion or another procedure permitting final determination of rights before trial. The trial judge would be better placed to assess the full evidence and resolve which agreement applied.

The government nevertheless had a disclosure obligation once the later agreement became relevant. Although the online version appeared to contain 159 pages, including appendices and pay schedules, neither Haynes nor the judge could certify that it was complete.

The government was ordered, within 30 days of the decision, either to confirm completeness or supply missing material. The earlier agreement was not to be removed from the disclosure record: both remained relevant to the disputed issue.

Focused searches and visible redactions

Haynes also sought meeting notes explaining the decision to place and keep her on a “Hire with Caution” list. The government said it had conducted extensive searches and produced relevant records, with no evidence that undisclosed notes existed.

The judge accepted the usual presumption that parties comply with their disclosure obligations. But a focused search for potentially central meeting notes was different from a general search, particularly where a self-represented litigant might not have explored that distinction during discovery.

The government was therefore ordered to confirm within 30 days that it had specifically searched for those notes, then either confirm that none existed or produce them. The order did not establish that the government had concealed existing notes.

A separate problem concerned hiring lists produced as spreadsheets. Information about other people had been deleted for privacy, leaving Haynes unable to see where changes had occurred.

The court required the relevant spreadsheets to be converted to PDFs and redacted within 30 days. Third-party information could remain protected, but the positions of redactions had to be apparent.

A corporate witness had to prepare

The government’s first discovery representative could answer general process questions but repeatedly lacked answers about details central to the dispute, including events in which the witness had participated.

Alibhai rejected one criticism concerning uncertainty over whether the witness had reviewed an amended pleading. That did not establish inadequate preparation. More significant were answers referring to archived or inaccessible records without explaining efforts to obtain them or review available documents to refresh memory.

A representative was not expected to remember everything, but had to prepare for central factual questions. The judge found a second examination had been necessary because of inadequate preparation and ordered the government to pay Haynes $2,463.09 within 30 days. That was a litigation-costs award, not compensation for dismissal.

No bad-faith finding on this record

The court found no evidence of bad faith or even unreasonable litigation conduct on the motion record. Taking positions contrary to Haynes’s case did not itself establish misconduct.

That conclusion did not bind the trial judge, who could assess a fuller evidentiary record. Questions about Haynes’s employment classification and residence at hiring were likewise left for trial.

The general costs of the motion were left in the cause for the trial judge to determine, separate from the specific discovery-costs payment. The ruling resolved preparation and disclosure issues, not the underlying employment claim.