Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on whether a union-led blockade at Titan’s facility justified an interlocutory injunction.

• Court considered whether the events constituted a “labour dispute” under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act.

• Key issue was whether union members could legally obstruct the removal of customer-owned tooling from Titan’s premises.

• Evidence of threats, trespass, and obstruction raised concerns of tortious interference and irreparable harm.

• The Union argued constitutional rights to protest, while Titan asserted property and contractual rights.

• Injunctive relief granted due to the risk of repeat disruptions and harm to Titan’s business reputation and customer relations.

Facts of the case

In Titan Tool & Die Limited v. Unifor and its Local 195, Titan Tool & Die, a Windsor-based manufacturer and unionized employer, sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against Unifor Local 195 and several individuals. The dispute arose after members of the union blockaded the company’s driveway to prevent the removal of manufacturing dies owned by Titan’s U.S.-based customers, Toyo Seat USA Corporation and Autokiniton US Holdings, Inc.

Titan was contractually obligated to return these dies upon customer request. The move was prompted by the customers’ fear of newly announced U.S. tariffs. On March 31, 2025, Titan attempted to comply, but the union physically blocked trucks from leaving its facility. One driver was threatened with tire-slashing. The blockade lasted approximately six hours, ending only after Titan removed the dies from the truck to de-escalate tensions. Titan contacted the Windsor Police Service twice, but officers did not forcibly remove the protesters or the obstructing vehicle.

Legal arguments and procedural posture

Titan filed a court application for damages based on tortious interference and trespass and moved for an injunction to prevent further interference with its property and business operations. The Union argued that the matter was a “labour dispute” and should be subject to section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act, which imposes additional preconditions for injunctions in such cases. It also raised procedural objections to the application format and jurisdiction.

The court addressed whether the dispute met the definition of a labour dispute. Despite the Union’s reliance on prior case law and broad statutory language, the court held that there was no proximate labour conflict between the Union and Titan. The union’s stated concern was about international tariffs, not any grievance under the collective agreement. Therefore, this was not a traditional labour dispute.

The injunction test applied

Justice Kalajdzic applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions.

On the first element—serious issue to be tried—the court found clear evidence of tortious conduct, including trespass, intimidation, and obstruction.

On the second element—irreparable harm—the court emphasized the risk of reputational damage, contractual breaches, financial penalties (such as $80,000 in potential U.S. customs duties), and threats of physical harm to personnel. These harms could not be easily quantified or remedied.

On the third element—the balance of convenience—the court concluded that Titan’s contractual and property rights outweighed the union’s freedom of expression in this context. While the right to protest is constitutionally protected, it cannot be exercised in a manner that involves unlawful conduct such as blockading private property or threatening others.

Outcome and final order

Justice Kalajdzic granted the injunction, prohibiting the union and any individuals with notice of the order from obstructing access to Titan’s premises or interfering with the transport of goods. The court reaffirmed that lawful protest must not escalate into coercion or criminality, even when driven by legitimate concerns such as job losses from international trade measures.

Titan succeeded in securing the injunction, though the underlying tort claim remains pending. Costs were left to be determined through written submissions if not resolved by agreement.