Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute centered on whether Teamsters Local Union No. 987 could lawfully picket at Sobeys company-owned grocery stores after the expiry of their collective agreement and subsequent strike and lockout.

• Sobeys sought a stay or injunction against the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) decision permitting picketing at company-owned grocery stores, arguing irreparable harm and legal error in the ALRB’s interpretation of “places of work.”

• The Court was required to determine the correct standard for interlocutory relief: whether Sobeys must establish a “serious issue to be tried” or a “strong prima facie case.”

• The ALRB’s consideration of ownership as a factor in determining “places of work,” and its use of Charter values, particularly freedom of expression, were examined for reasonableness.

• The balance of convenience and potential for irreparable harm to both Sobeys and the Teamsters, including the impact on constitutional rights and business interests, were analyzed.

• The Court found Sobeys did not meet the required threshold for relief and dismissed the application, awarding costs to the Teamsters.

Facts of the case

Sobeys Capital Incorporated is one of the largest grocery store operators in Canada. Teamsters Local Union No. 987 represents 251 employees who work at the Sobeys Retail Support Centre, Calgary Refrigerated Warehouse, and as truck drivers delivering goods from those locations to Sobeys grocery stores in Calgary. The Teamsters do not represent grocery store employees; most store employees are represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local 401, and some by the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union.

The collective agreement between Sobeys and the Teamsters expired on April 19, 2025. On September 18, 2025, the Teamsters commenced a strike, and Sobeys locked the Teamsters out. Initially, picketing was limited to the Retail Support Centre and the Calgary Refrigerated Warehouse, governed by agreed picketing protocols.

On September 29, 2025, the Teamsters applied to the ALRB for permission to picket at Sobeys grocery stores, arguing these were their “places of employment” or, alternatively, that secondary picketing should be permitted. The ALRB held a hearing on October 3, 2025, and rendered a decision on October 15, 2025, concluding that Sobeys company-owned grocery stores were a place of employment under section 84(1) of the Labour Relations Code for the striking and locked-out Teamsters. This permitted picketing at company-owned, but not franchised, Sobeys grocery stores. The Teamsters began picketing at the Castleridge Safeway on October 16, 2025, and continued rotating picketing at company-owned stores.

Legal arguments and policy terms

Sobeys applied for a stay of the ALRB decision, or alternatively, an injunction restraining the Teamsters from picketing at company-owned grocery stores until the judicial review was completed. Sobeys claimed that picketing at these stores was causing irreparable harm to its reputation, disturbing the peace, and intimidating customers and employees. The Teamsters argued that such relief would infringe their Charter right to freedom of expression and give Sobeys an unjustified advantage in the labour dispute.

The Court examined whether the standard for interlocutory relief should be the “serious issue to be tried” or the higher “strong prima facie case” standard, referencing the “Woods Exception.” The Court determined that granting the requested relief would, in practical effect, amount to final relief for Sobeys, as the judicial review would likely not be completed before the labour dispute ended. Therefore, the “strong prima facie case” standard applied.

The ALRB’s decision was reviewed for reasonableness, including its use of ownership as a factor in determining “places of work” and its consideration of Charter values, specifically freedom of expression, as required by section 84(6) of the Code. The Court found that the ALRB’s distinction between company-owned and franchised stores was reasonable, as ownership relates to the directness of the interest of the trade union picketing, and that the ALRB’s interpretive approach was consistent with statutory requirements and Supreme Court guidance.

Outcome and ruling

Justice Colin C.J. Feasby found that Sobeys did not demonstrate a strong prima facie case that the ALRB decision was unreasonable. The ALRB’s conclusion that company-owned grocery stores were among the Teamsters’ places of work, based on the delivery drivers’ activities and Sobeys’ ownership, was found to be reasonable at this stage. Since Sobeys did not meet the required threshold, the application for a stay or injunction was dismissed.

The Court also considered, for completeness, the issues of irreparable harm and balance of convenience. While Sobeys would suffer irreparable harm if relief was not granted, the harm to the Teamsters—loss of their constitutional right to freedom of expression at a critical time—was greater. The ALRB was found to be better placed to regulate picketing issues than the Court.

Costs were awarded to the Teamsters. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount, they may provide written submissions of three pages or less supported by a Bill of Costs. No specific monetary amount was determined in the decision. The Teamsters were the successful party in this application.