Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central to both decisions was whether an injunction restraining CUPW's picketing of a Purolator facility had to proceed under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act (the notice-based labour dispute regime) or under the general section 101 injunction power.
   
• Purolator argued that because it was not itself a party to the underlying labour dispute between Canada Post and CUPW, section 101 rather than section 102 governed its request for an ex parte injunction.
   
• CUPW contended that its picketing of Purolator, a company 91% owned by Canada Post with overlapping board members, was "in connection with" the labour dispute and therefore required the notice protections of section 102.
   
• Jurisdiction was also disputed, since the appeal route to the Court of Appeal without leave under section 102(10) depends on whether the underlying order was, in substance, a section 102 order rather than a section 101 order reviewable only by the Divisional Court with leave.
   
• Although the injunction had expired and the underlying strike had been resolved by a ratified collective agreement, the Court of Appeal considered whether it should still exercise its discretion to decide the moot merits appeal.
   
• A dissenting justice in the jurisdictional motion concluded that the motion judge's order was, in nature and substance, a section 101 order, meaning the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal at all.
   

Facts of the case

In November 2024, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers ("CUPW") commenced a legal nationwide strike against Canada Post Corporation ("Canada Post"). Purolator Inc. ("Purolator"), a private Canadian courier company, is majority-owned by Canada Post, which holds 91% of Purolator's shares, and Canada Post's CEO and Chair both sit on Purolator's board of directors. Purolator's own employees were not on strike, as they are represented by a separate union. On November 28, 2024, a group of CUPW members began picketing outside Purolator's facility on Silver Star Boulevard in Scarborough, Ontario. The following day, picketers began blockading the facility's exit, causing significant delays; only 27 of 78 planned vehicles were able to leave, with individual trucks delayed between 15 and 31 minutes. That same day, Purolator obtained an ex parte interim injunction under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act ("CJA") restraining CUPW from picketing at the facility or any other Purolator premises in Ontario, initially for ten days and later extended, ultimately expiring on January 15, 2025. The motion judge, applying a three-part test derived from Trudel and Sons Roofing Ltd. v. Canadian Union of Shinglers and Allied Workers, found that Purolator was not the "alter ego" of Canada Post and did not share its premises, and therefore was not a "disputant" in the labour dispute for purposes of section 102. CUPW appealed, and Purolator moved to quash that appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the proper appeal route was to the Divisional Court under section 19(1)(b) of the CJA. That motion was decided in Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2025 ONCA 565. The merits of CUPW's appeal were later decided in Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2026 ONCA 515. By the time the merits appeal was heard, the injunction had long expired, and on June 1, 2026, CUPW's membership ratified a collective agreement with Canada Post, binding until January 31, 2029, resolving the underlying labour dispute.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case turned on the interplay between two provisions of the CJA. Section 101(1) permits an interlocutory injunction to be granted generally, "where it appears to a judge of the court to be just or convenient to do so." Section 102 establishes a distinct regime for injunctions restraining "an act in connection with a labour dispute," including a notice requirement under section 102(2), limits on interim injunctions under section 102(5), and specific notice provisions under sections 102(6) to (8). Section 102(1) defines "labour dispute" as a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment, "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee." Section 102(10) provides that an appeal from a section 102 order lies to the Court of Appeal without leave, while section 19(1)(b) directs that interlocutory orders generally are appealed to the Divisional Court with leave. CUPW also invoked sections 2(b) and (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protecting expression and association, though the courts found no need to resort to Charter values given the absence of genuine ambiguity in the statutory text.

Reasoning and analysis

In the 2025 jurisdictional decision, the majority (Gillese J.A., Pomerance J.A. concurring) held that a plain reading of section 102(1) captures secondary picketing, since the definition of "labour dispute" expressly applies regardless of whether the parties stand in an employer-employee relationship. This reading was reinforced by the legislative history of the provision, including the 1970 amendments implementing recommendations from the Royal Commission Inquiry into Labour Disputes, and by the Supreme Court's decision in R.W.D.S.U., Local 558 v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd., which abolished the common-law distinction between primary and secondary picketing. Applying a substance-over-form approach drawn from cases such as Paulpillai Estate v. Yusef, the majority concluded that the motion judge's order was, in substance, a section 102 order regardless of the label the motion judge applied, giving the Court of Appeal jurisdiction under section 102(10). Gomery J.A. dissented, reasoning that the characterization of an order depends on its legal nature rather than its practical effect, and that the motion judge's explicit reasons rejecting section 102, together with the ex parte procedure followed, showed the order was in substance a section 101 order outside the court's jurisdiction under section 102(10).

In the 2026 merits decision, Monahan J.A. (Copeland and Gomery JJ.A. concurring) first addressed mootness, concluding that the appeal was moot given the expiry of the injunction and resolution of the strike, but that the court should exercise its discretion under the framework in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) to decide the section 101/102 issue given its public importance, while declining to address the separate ground concerning the injunction's breadth as unduly fact-specific. On the merits, the panel held that section 102 turns on whether the restrained conduct is "in connection with" a labour dispute, not on whether the moving party is itself a disputant, and that the phrase "in connection with" has consistently been given a broad meaning in this court's jurisprudence. Because Canada Post's 91% ownership of Purolator and the overlap in leadership between the two companies established an identifiable connection between the picketing and the Canada Post/CUPW labour dispute, section 102 applied, and no notice had been given as that section required.

Ruling and overall outcome

In the 2025 jurisdictional decision, the majority dismissed Purolator's motion to quash, finding the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear CUPW's appeal, with CUPW, as the successful party, awarded costs of $18,000 on an all-inclusive basis; Gomery J.A. dissented and would have granted the motion to quash with costs to Purolator. In the subsequent 2026 merits decision, the Court of Appeal allowed CUPW's appeal and set aside the injunction, having found that Purolator's picketing dispute was connected to the underlying labour dispute and therefore required the notice procedure under section 102, which had not been followed. CUPW, again the successful party, was awarded costs of $30,000 on an all-inclusive basis, in accordance with the parties' agreement.