L’Hôpital Montfort v. AIIO

After a violent incident on her unit, a nurse accessed a patient’s file without clinical justification and was dismissed. Preparing for arbitration, the union sought broad document disclosure — but the arbitrator shut it down.

Background

The Grievor, a registered nurse who had worked at L’Hôpital Montfort for nine years in the Mental Health Unit, filed a grievance regarding her dismissal. The basis of her dismissal involved an incident on May 6, 2025, when a patient in the Mental Health Unit was involved in violence incidents. During her next shift, The Grievor accessed the patient’s electronic medical file without a legitimate clinical purpose. The employer investigated and concluded that The Grievor had no valid reason to access this confidential patient information, and that the access violated the patient’s right to protection of personal health information under professional regulations. The employer subsequently dismissed her.

In preparing for arbitration, the Ontario Nurses’ Association (the union) requested that the employer disclose certain documents to support the union’s case.

The Disclosure Request

The union’s disclosure request sought:

• All incident reports related to violence incidents occurring on May 6, 2025 on the Mental Health Unit at L’Hôpital Montfort
• Complete copies of all communications (including email, SMS, telephone calls, and other communications) related to the violence incidents on May 6, 2025 on the Mental Health Unit at L’Hôpital Montfort
• The employer’s report submitted to the College of Nurses regarding The Grievor’s dismissal
• Names of sections in the Meditech software that were accessed by the grievor

The Parties’ Positions

The union argued that, according to legal precedent, the union has the right to obtain from the employer on demand any document in the employer’s possession that has genuine relevance to the arbitration. The purpose of this jurisprudence is to ensure a fair and effective hearing.

The employer argued that the power to order disclosure of documents was within the arbitrator’s discretion. The party requesting disclosure must demonstrate that the documents in question have genuine relevance to the issues in dispute. The arbitrator should determine whether disclosing the documents would cause undue prejudice to the union’s position. A disclosure request is not a “fishing expedition”—it should not be vague or unparticularized. The employer cited the “West Park Hospital” test and noted that under Article 36 of the Health Professions Regulation Act, 1991, the employer’s report was subject to protective order.

Arbitrator Bendel’s Decision

The arbitrator rejected the union’s disclosure request. The arbitrator found that the union’s request did not meet the criteria established in West Park Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association (1993), 37 L.A.C. (4th) 160. Under that precedent, disclosure requests must satisfy the following factors:

• The information requested must be arguably relevant
• The requested information must be particularised so there is no dispute as to what is desired
• The board of arbitration should be satisfied that the information is not being requested as a “fishing expedition”
• There must be a clear nexus between the information being requested and the positions in dispute
• The board should be satisfied that disclosure will not cause undue prejudice

The arbitrator found that the union’s request did not meet these criteria. The union failed to provide any clear indication of what information it hoped to find in the enumerated documents. The request amounted to a “fishing expedition”—a vague attempt to uncover something that might assist the union’s position, without clearly articulating what it was seeking or why it was relevant.

The arbitrator concluded that the union’s request lacked sufficient particularity and clarity to demonstrate genuine relevance to the issues in dispute. Accordingly, the disclosure request was dismissed.

Citation: Bendel, Arb. · 2025 CanLII 1296