Background
In November 2024, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers commenced a lawful strike against Canada Post. When CUPW members began picketing a Purolator facility in Scarborough, Ontario—causing delays of 15 to 31 minutes to trucks—Purolator obtained an ex parte interim injunction on November 29, 2024, without notice to CUPW. The motion judge issued the injunction under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, reasoning that section 102, which applies to labour disputes and requires notice, did not apply because Purolator was not a “disputant” in the CUPW-Canada Post dispute; it was merely a third-party competitor. CUPW appealed.
Although Canada Post owns 91% of Purolator’s shares and its CEO and Chair sit on Purolator’s board, the motion judge distinguished Purolator as a separate entity seeking to capture Canada Post’s customers during the strike.
A prior three-judge panel had resolved the jurisdictional question by holding that section 102 governed the motion, meaning the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the merits appeal. This panel addressed the substantive issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction. The panel held that section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act applies whenever an injunction is sought to restrain picketing that has “an identifiable and distinct connection” with an underlying labour dispute—not merely when the party seeking the injunction is a direct disputant. The text of section 102 repeatedly refers to restraining acts “in connection with a labour dispute,” and “in connection with” means there is some relationship between the activities such that they have something to do with each other.
The court rejected the motion judge’s narrow approach of requiring the moving party to be a disputant. Instead, it adopted an expansive reading consistent with the provision’s procedural purpose: to ensure that injunctions in labour contexts are issued with notice, enabling courts to hear from both sides and better tailor any order. This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in R.W.D.S.U. v. Pepsi-Cola, which recognized that secondary picketing (picketing of non-primary targets) can be protected expressive activity related to a labour dispute.
Applying this standard, CUPW’s picketing of Purolator was clearly connected to the Canada Post labour dispute. Canada Post’s 91% ownership and control of Purolator’s board created a sufficient connection. Because section 102(2) requires notice before issuing such an injunction, and no notice was provided, the injunction was issued without jurisdiction and had to be set aside.
Key Takeaways
- Section 102 of the CJA’s notice requirement applies based on the connection between the restrained activity and a labour dispute, not on whether the party seeking the injunction is directly involved in the dispute.
- The phrase “in connection with a labour dispute” receives a broad, inclusive interpretation that can encompass picketing of third parties, including secondary or economic targets.
- Section 102 is procedural—it does not predetermine whether an injunction will be granted, only how the motion must proceed; the substantive test (RJR-MacDonald) remains separate.
- The procedural protections in section 102 advance both fairness (giving the union notice and a hearing) and judicial efficacy (enabling the court to craft more tailored, implementable orders).
Why It Matters
This decision substantially expands the scope of labour-related injunctions subject to section 102’s notice requirement. Employers and third parties like suppliers or franchisees can no longer easily evade labour dispute procedures by arguing they are unrelated to the underlying strike. The ruling protects the ability of unions to engage in secondary picketing and other labour-related expressive activity by ensuring that any injunction against it must follow procedurally protective channels. For litigants, it provides clarity: courts must focus on whether the picketed activity is “connected to” a labour dispute, not on the formalistic question of whether the moving party is a technical disputant.
The decision also reflects Parliament’s original intent behind section 102, informed by a 1968 Royal Commission report recommending limits on ex parte injunctions in labour contexts. By requiring notice except in genuine emergencies, the statute aims to balance the interests of third-party business operators against the fundamental labour rights recognized in Pepsi-Cola.