Patrick F. Milloy

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.

The respondents in an application for judicial review brought a motion to strike over 100 paragraphs from the applicant's affidavit.

The applicant, a suspended police officer, sought judicial review regarding the disbandment of the Leamington Police Service and related severance and disciplinary issues.

The moving parties argued the challenged paragraphs were irrelevant, contained legal argument, or expressed personal opinions.

The Divisional Court agreed that the affidavit should be confined to relevant facts and non-contentious background.

The court struck the majority of the challenged paragraphs, finding they dealt with the merits of underlying charges not directly at issue, contained legal arguments better suited for a factum, or expressed unsupported personal views.

The applicant teachers' federation sought a stay of a Minister of Labour order pending judicial review.

The order revoked a previous designation allowing a multi-site joint Health and Safety Committee, requiring the school board to establish site-based committees at each of its 94 schools.

Applying the RJR Macdonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried, but the applicant failed to demonstrate clear and non-speculative irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the respondent school board, as the multi-site system was not working and impeded its ability to comply with health and safety obligations.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.