Picketing & Labour Disputes Under the Courts of Justice Act
What constitutes a “party to a labour dispute”? Is secondary picketing not considered picketing in relation to a “labour dispute”? The Ontario Court of Appeal answers these questions in Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, holding that the focus under s. 102 of the Courts of Justice Act is not whether the party seeking the injunction is itself a disputant, but whether the activity sought to be restrained is connected to a labour dispute.[i] As a result, an injunction against secondary picketing may only be issued in accordance with the notice requirements in s. 102.[ii]
Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers
The appeal arose after Purolator obtained an ex parte (did not provide notice) injunction under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act restraining members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (“CUPW”) from picketing its Ontario facilities during CUPW’s strike against Canada Post.[iii] The motion judge concluded that s. 102 did not apply because Purolator was not a party to the underlying labour dispute and therefore granted the injunction without notice.[iv] CUPW then appealed, arguing that its picketing of Purolator’s facilities was an act connected to the labour dispute with Canada Post, meaning s. 102 governed the injunction, and notice was required before any injunction could be issued.[v]
The first preliminary issue was whether the appeal was moot because the injunction expired on January 15, 2025, and the underlying labour dispute between CUPW and Canada Post had since been resolved through a collective agreement ratified on June 1, 2026.[vi] Although both parties agreed that the Court should determine the primary issue concerning the interpretation of s. 102 of the Courts of Justice Act, they disagreed on whether the Court should also decide CUPW’s alternative ground of appeal regarding the breadth of the injunction if the appeal was found to be moot.[vii] Applying the factors from Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court decidedthat, while there was no longer a live controversy between the parties, the proper interpretation of s. 102 is an important issue of law that has not previously been decided by the Court of Appeal, is of significant public interest, and may otherwise evade appellate review.[viii] However, the Court declined to consider CUPW’s alternative ground of appeal because it was highly fact-specific, would require consideration of an extensive evidentiary record relating to an expired injunction, and would have limited precedential value.[ix]
The second preliminary issue was whether the Court’s earlier jurisdiction decision had already resolved the appeal in CUPW’s favour.[x] CUPW argued that the earlier panel had already determined that the injunction could only have been issued under s. 102 of the Courts of Justice Act, and that this conclusion was binding on the current panel of judges.[xi] Purolator argued that the earlier decision dealt only with the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal and did not determine its substantive merits, noting that it had not been allowed to fully argue the merits at the jurisdiction hearing.[xii] The Court observed that the parties devoted only limited submissions to this issue and that it independently reached the same conclusion as the lower court, that s. 102, rather than s. 101 governed the issuance of the injunction.[xiii] Because the outcome would be the same regardless of whether the earlier decision was binding, the issue would not affect the disposition of the appeal.[xiv]
Key Takeaways
The Court’s decision in Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers highlights the broad protections afforded to labour-related picketing and confirms that courts must focus on the connection between the activity and the labour dispute, rather than solely on the identity of the parties who are seeking relief.
- Section 102 applies whenever the activity sought to be restrained is connected to a labour dispute, even if the moving party is not itself a disputant.[xv]
- Secondary picketing may constitute an act “in connection with a labour dispute” and therefore engage the procedural protections in s. 102.[xvi]
- Except in limited statutory circumstances, notice is generally required before an injunction restraining labour-related picketing may be granted.[xvii]
- Section 102 is procedural, not substantive; it governs how injunction motions must proceed, while the ultimate entitlement to an injunction continues to be determined under the RJR-MacDonald test.[xviii]
How Our Team Can Assist You
Walker Law can assist you with a variety of legal matters, including disputes involving Employment Litigation Law, Appeals, Civil Litigation Law, Commercial Litigation Law, and Contract Disputes.
[i] Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2026 ONCA 515 [hereinafter Purolator] at paras 29-43; Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.
[ii] Purolator at para 6.
[iii] Purolator at paras 2 and 8.
[iv] Purolator at paras 2 and 9-12.
[v] Purolator at paras 3 and 18.
[vi] Purolator at paras 16 and 19-20.
[vii] Purolator at para 16.
[viii] Purolator at paras 20-22.
[ix] Purolator at para 23.
[x] Purolator at paras 17 and 24.
[xi] Purolator at para 25.
[xii] Purolator at para 26.
[xiii] Purolator at para 27.
[xiv] Purolator at para 28.
[xv] Purolator at paras 32-43.
[xvi] Purolator at paras 40-48.
[xvii] Purolator at paras 6, 37, 45, and 48.
[xviii] Purolator at paras 37 and 45.
Tags: Employment Litigation Law, Appeals, Civil Litigation Law, Commercial Litigation Law, and Contract Disputes.