Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The central issue was whether an injunction restraining picketing constituted a labour injunction under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act.

• The union challenged the court’s jurisdiction and asserted the right to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court.

• The court analyzed whether the dispute fell within the statutory definition of a “labour dispute.”

• The scope of the injunction and its potential impact on freedom of expression and association were key constitutional concerns.

• The court reaffirmed that section 102 applies where picketing arises from a lawful labour strike, even involving secondary locations.

• The appeal was allowed, and the court clarified the appropriate appellate route for labour injunctions.

Background and context of the injunction

During a lawful strike by members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), picketing occurred at multiple Purolator facilities. The employer, Purolator Inc., obtained an interlocutory injunction to restrict picketing activity at one of its Toronto locations (90 Silver Star Boulevard). The injunction was granted under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, which generally governs civil injunctive relief.

CUPW and other defendants, including unnamed individuals identified as John Doe and Jane Doe, were barred from certain picketing activities. CUPW appealed, not to the Divisional Court as expected under section 101, but directly to the Ontario Court of Appeal, arguing that the injunction was in fact a labour injunction under section 102, which provides an appeal as of right to the Court of Appeal.

Jurisdictional challenge and legal interpretation

The main issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the original injunction fell under section 101 or section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act. Section 102 specifically addresses injunctions that are "in relation to or arising out of a labour dispute." If section 102 applied, CUPW had a direct right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. If section 101 applied, the appeal should have gone to the Divisional Court with leave.

Purolator argued that the injunction targeted conduct like trespassing and obstruction—not the labour dispute itself—and thus section 101 applied. CUPW responded that the injunction’s real purpose was to restrict picketing in the context of an ongoing lawful strike, which is squarely within the scope of a labour dispute.

Court of Appeal’s analysis and conclusion

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with CUPW. It held that the injunction clearly arose out of a labour dispute between CUPW and Purolator and was therefore governed by section 102. The Court emphasized that the conduct targeted by the injunction—picketing activity at a secondary site—was an integral part of the union's strike strategy and fell squarely within the protections and procedural requirements of labour law.

The court also rejected any artificial distinction between primary and secondary picketing for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. Regardless of the specific form of picketing, the injunction sought to regulate conduct arising from a collective bargaining dispute. As such, the appeal was properly before the Court of Appeal.

Outcome and implications

The appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal ruled that the injunction was a labour injunction governed by section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act. Consequently, the union was entitled to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal without seeking leave from the Divisional Court. This decision underscores the importance of correctly characterizing injunctions involving picketing and labour disputes, and reinforces the special procedural safeguards attached to labour injunctions in Ontario.