Employer's recruitment promises, succession plans put under scrutiny
The Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) has issued a discovery ruling in Costa v Edward Jones Investments, 2025 ONSC 6699 that compels extensive disclosure on recruitment practices, succession planning, harassment responses and HR qualifications at the firm.
In reasons released Dec. 1, 2025, Associate Justice Karen Jolley addressed a motion by plaintiff Amalia Costa, a former senior employee who alleges she was induced to leave a 26‑year career at the Royal Bank of Canada for Edward Jones on the strength of assurances about her prospective leader, General Partner Derrick Strizic.
Costa’s statement of claim, summarised in the decision, alleges that she “requested an in‑person meeting so that she could receive an in‑person final assurance from Mr. Strizic that he had no plans to leave Edward Jones. During this meeting, Mr. Strizic assured Ms. Costa that he had no plans to leave Edward Jones.” She further alleges she “was never advised that Mr. Strizic had recently been diagnosed with cancer and that, as a result, there was a significant likelihood that changes in reporting structure would take place in the very near future.”
Costa alleges bad faith and seeks total damages in the amount of $1,100,000 for “breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, negligent misrepresentation and punitive and exemplary damages.” Edward Jones denies inducement and misrepresentation and maintains that Costa was “lawfully terminated pursuant to the employment agreement.”
Previously, CIBC termination clauses were found to be unenforceable for two consultants.
Discovery ruling, employment records, costs
On discovery, Associate Justice Jolley ordered the employer to answer questions about who knew of Strizic’s diagnosis and when, as well as succession planning, new leaders and retirement references in his employment file. The court held that these issues were “relevant based on the pleadings.”
The ruling also has direct implications for HR governance at Edward Jones. The court considered questions about the understanding and qualifications of the firm’s HR leader, Ola Wall. Rejecting an argument that one key question sought a legal opinion, Associate Justice Jolley found that “the defendant can answer this question based on corporate policies and Wall’s general HR knowledge as the head of HR for the defendant.”
The court further ordered production of Costa’s complete employment records. “Given the conversion of paper files to electronic files, I do not limit the request to paper files,” Associate Justice Jolley wrote.
“The defendant shall answer the questions noted above within 45 days of the date of this decision,” the justice noted. “The plaintiff is permitted to conduct one further examination of the defendant solely on the answers provided as ordered above and any questions arising from those answers. The examination shall be by zoom unless the parties agree to an in person discovery and shall be limited to one hour.”
Each party was directed to bear its own costs in the case.
Previously, a former chief of staff of the Quebec Liberal Party served her former employer with a formal notice of potential wrongful dismissal lawsuit, marking an escalation in internal party turmoil that has roiled the provincial opposition party.
