James A. Renaud

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant landlord for damages arising from a slip and fall on black ice in a parking lot.

The defendant was noted in default and deemed to admit liability.

The court assessed general damages at $80,000 for knee injuries requiring surgery.

The court also awarded damages for loss of income, but deducted sickness absence benefits received by the plaintiff under his collective agreement, finding the private insurance exception to the rule against double recovery did not apply because the plaintiff failed to prove he contributed to the benefits.

The applicant employer brought a motion to stay an arbitrator's interim award pending judicial review.

The employer had disciplined an employee, who grieved the discipline.

The employer subsequently withdrew the discipline and argued the arbitrator lost jurisdiction as the matter was resolved.

The arbitrator found there were remaining remedial issues and retained jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious question to be determined because the judicial review application was premature and would result in fragmentation of the administrative process.

The respondent, a union president, commenced a representative action claiming the appellant employer failed to provide employees with their share of employment insurance premium reductions under the Employment Insurance Act.

The employer moved to dismiss the action, arguing exclusive jurisdiction lay with a labour arbitrator.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, relying on previous case law.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by not properly applying the Supreme Court's decisions in Weber and Parry Sound.

The Court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement, as informed by the substantive rights in the Employment Insurance Act, giving an arbitrator exclusive jurisdiction.

The appeal was allowed and the action stayed.

The defendant university brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's representative action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and the dispute should be resolved by a labour arbitrator.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to share savings from the Employment Insurance Premium Reduction Program with employees.

The court applied the Weber test and found that the essential character of the dispute did not arise from the collective agreement, but rather from the defendant's alleged failure to comply with the Employment Insurance Act.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The appellant was terminated for cause after making violent threats to fellow employees.

He appealed, arguing his conduct was influenced by a mental disability and his termination violated the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the employer was unaware of the disability at the time of termination and fired him solely for workplace violence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the termination for just cause was upheld.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to add the Attorney General of Canada as a party defendant to an action against the University of Windsor regarding employment insurance premium reductions.

The appellant sought to assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and negligence against the proposed defendant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant had not pleaded a tenable cause of action.

The applicant applied for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision ordering the disclosure of contested documents.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the arbitrator misunderstood its concession regarding the independence of a third party and failed to hold a hearing on the third party's neutrality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the distinction between neutrality and independence was mere wordsmithing.

The Court also upheld the arbitrator's jurisdiction to order disclosure, finding her interpretation of the grievance reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral award that dismissed a professor for just cause.

The underlying dismissal occurred in 2001, and the arbitral award was issued in 2002.

Due to various procedural steps, adjournments, and a late intervention by the dismissed professor raising jurisdictional arguments, the application did not proceed to a hearing until 2014.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for extreme delay, finding that relitigating a workplace dispute over a decade later would cause prejudice and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

A long‑term employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal and discrimination under the Human Rights Code after being terminated for making threatening remarks toward coworkers when leaving the workplace following a disciplinary meeting.

The employee argued that the threats were the result of an undisclosed mental disability and that the employer should have investigated and accommodated him rather than terminating his employment.

The court held that the employer had no knowledge of the employee’s psychiatric condition at the time and was not required to diagnose or infer a disability.

Given the seriousness of the threats, which constituted workplace violence, the employer was entitled to terminate the employee for just cause in order to protect other staff.

The court concluded that the Human Rights Code did not shield the employee from the consequences of serious misconduct unrelated to any known disability.