Labour Injunctions & Cease and Desist Orders in Ontario

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[10] harm will readily be established when the evidence demonstrates that picketers are likely engaging in deliberate tortious or criminal actions for which damages are an inadequate remedy. Finally, with respect to the third branch, courts have consistently found that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an injunction when the picketing at issue goes beyond the communication of views. Southern Sanitation Inc. (c.o.b. Wasteco) v. Fiore 20 (“Southern Sanitation”) and Aramark Canada Ltd. v. Keating 21 are two such Ontario Superior Court cases that reflect the courts’approach to and application of the RJR-MacDonald test in the context of a labour dispute. These cases reflect the fact that the issuance of an injunction will turn on whether the employer has established the existence of sufficient evidence that would support a finding that the union has engaged in tortious or criminal conduct in the course of picketing if the matter were to proceed to trial. A review of Ontario jurisprudence following the Pepsi-Cola decision indicates that employers most commonly seek an injunction to prohibit picketing activity where it has impeded the ability of workers, customers, suppliers and the public to enter or exit an employer’s premises. Consistent with the Pepsi-Cola decision, courts have generally found that a union’s picketing activities are lawful provided that their primary purpose is to communicate information to the public. Courts have also emphasized that any delays to individuals entering or exiting the employer’s premises as a result of picketing related communications should be brief and not exceed the amount of time reasonably necessary for the picketers to convey their message. This 20 Southern Sanitation Inc. (c.o.b. Wasteco) v Fiore, [2009] OJ No 2936 (Ont Sup Ct) [Southern Sanitation]. 21 Aramark Canada Ltd. v Keating, [2002] OJ No 3505 (Ont Sup Ct).
[11] approach is evident in the courts’reasoning in Southern Sanitation and Brookfield Properties Ltd. v Hoath 22 (“Brookfield Properties Ltd.”). Southern Sanitation involved a lawful strike by CUPE Local 416 against the City of Toronto. As a result of the strike, a third party company called Wasteco was providing garbage collection services that otherwise would have been handled by the union. Given its involvement, Wasteco collection sites were picketed by CUPE Local 416 members. The picketing involved blockades and threats. The City of Toronto obtained an injunction that allowed union members to picket but limited any delays resulting from picketing to five minutes. The injunction also specified that picketing was to be conducted for “informational purposes only.” 23 In Brookfield Properties Ltd., the union was picketing a large office complex in downtown Toronto owned by the employer, Brookfield. The picketing was largely centered on the entrances and exits to the office complex’s parking garage as well as its receiving dock. At the outset of the strike the union and employer had agreed upon a picketing protocol. However, as the dispute progressed the union began to depart from the protocol. The employer successfully obtained an injunction that limited the picketers’ability to delay entrance to and exit from the parking garage except in accordance with the previously agreed upon picketing protocol. The injunction also contained a prohibition against “interfering with, blocking, obstructing or delaying, in any way whatsoever”the entry of vehicles into the parking garage between 6:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. any day of the week and exit from the receiving dock at any time. 24 In granting the injunction, the court commented on the fact that delays associated with picketing should be for informational purposes. It stated: 22 Brookfield Properties Ltd. v Hoath, [2010] OJ No 4822 (Ont Sup Ct) [Brookfield Properties Ltd.]. 23 Southern Sanitation, supra note 20 at para 68. 24 Brookfield Properties Ltd., supra note 22 at para 64.
Page 1 and 2: [1] Labour Injunctions & Cease and
Page 3 and 4: [3] It is through free expression t
Page 5 and 6: [5] Section 102(3) then provides th
Page 7 and 8: [7] The Court of Appeal specificall
Page 9: [9] Therefore, while section 102(3)
Page 13 and 14: [13] leaving the employer’s facil
Page 15 and 16: [15] The declarations, directions a
Page 17 and 18: [17] SCC in a Canada Labour Code ca
Page 19: [19] 102(3) of the Courts of Justic

Labour Injunctions & Cease and Desist Orders in Ontario

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?