The NDA couldn't last when harassment complaints kept piling up
An Ontario court ruled on April 10, 2026, that a former head of Human Resources bound by a non-disclosure agreement may be examined for discovery in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, after Associate Justice Jolley found that the employer was constructively refusing to make relevant information available. The decision, Kachra v. OPSEU Pension Trust 2026 ONSC 2092, centres on how an organization handled, or did not handle, a pattern of workplace misconduct allegations spanning years.
Aly Kachra worked as Director of Investment Risk at OPSEU Pension Trust from April 2017 until his dismissal on January 9, 2020. He alleged that his direct manager, Mr. Hudacin, berated him, retaliated against him, caused dysfunction in the team, and interfered with his ability to properly manage risk. He complained to the defendant's HR business partner on multiple occasions about the harassment he was subjected to. He also complained directly to Hudacin when Hudacin allegedly arbitrarily reduced his bonus as a form of reprisal for his complaints.
Kachra further contacted Reg Swamy, then Chief Pension Officer and Head of Human Resources, about his harassment concerns. The plaintiff alleges that Swamy promised to raise the issue, but no apparent steps were taken. In response to his complaints, Kachra was told to look for new employment, a response that shocked and confused him, especially given his understanding that Hudacin had a history of bullying and harassing behaviour, as evidenced by numerous prior complaints against him. His employment was terminated shortly thereafter.
Kachra is seeking wrongful dismissal damages, moral damages of $250,000 for the bad-faith manner of his dismissal, and punitive damages of $500,000 due to the defendant's failure to investigate and address his complaints of harassment and reprisal.
The NDA that blocked the truth
Kachra provided the names of seven other employees who he believed had made complaints about Hudacin's behaviour toward them through various channels, including diversity counsel, HR, external investigators, and OP Trust executives. The alleged conduct included "bullying, harassment, mistreatment of others, yelling and rudeness, … taking staff to strip clubs, offering them narcotics and asking Asian staff to take an Accent reduction course." Among those seven was Swamy himself, who, according to Kachra, had allegedly made his own complaint against Hudacin and commenced an investigation into his conduct.
Swamy was willing to speak and be examined, but was bound by an NDA the employer refused to waive. When Associate Justice Rappos had previously ordered the defendant to produce complaints about Hudacin from January 2018 to January 2020, the defendant delivered one heavily redacted complaint and advised there were no others. The defendant's representative on discovery also stated he was not aware of any complaints made against Hudacin.
Swamy had informed plaintiff's counsel that he had spoken with the defendant's lawyers and provided information about the matters in issue, stating: "I would have assumed that you have the details from [defendant's counsel] that I provided on that call, I also made handwritten notes of the relevant information I provided on that date." None of that information was passed to the plaintiff.
The court's decision
Justice Jolley found that complaints made by other employees, including Mr. Swamy, regarding Hudacin were central to the plaintiff's claim for moral and punitive damages, noting the plaintiff's allegation that "Human Resources knew or ought to have known that Mr. Hudacin had been the subject of several other complaints of harassment … and Human Resources deliberately chose not to do anything about it, forcing the plaintiff to continue to work in a toxic work environment."
With the defendant taking a consistently narrow view of relevance and refusing to facilitate Swamy's evidence, the court concluded the plaintiff could not obtain the information through any other channel, and that it would be unfair to require him to proceed to trial without that opportunity.
Justice Jolley granted leave under Rule 31.10, writing: "I find that exercising my discretion to permit this examination on the facts of this case will assist in achieving the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits." The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the all-inclusive sum of $20,000 in costs within 30 days.
