Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the matters pleaded in Remcan's Statement of Claim fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
• Interpretation of s. 76 of the Act was central, specifically whether intimidation or coercion "one step removed" — including the alleged bribery of a supervisor — falls within the Board's reach.
• The court considered whether the civil action was an abuse of process under rr. 21.01(3)(c) and (d), given overlapping issues already raised before the Board.
• Whether the Rights of Labour Act barred the proceeding was raised but rejected by the court.
• A pleadings question also arose as to whether the Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action; the court declined to strike on that basis.
• Remcan filed no evidence supporting its alleged damages, a gap the court found fatal in light of the inference that the action was a tactical maneuver.

Facts of the case

Remcan Projects LP and Remcan Projects GP Inc. (collectively "Remcan") operate in the construction industry. The Labourers International Union of North America, Ontario District Council ("LIUNA") is campaigning to organize a union for Remcan's workers, and 16 proceedings are ongoing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board relating to those certification efforts. On July 12, 2024, Remcan filed a Response to the certification applications alleging that LIUNA had engaged in deceitful activities, including a representative masquerading as Remcan management at a hotel to obtain employee room numbers. LIUNA, in turn, filed an unfair labour practice application on July 26, 2024, alleging Remcan had engaged in anti-union coercion in breach of ss. 70, 72, and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. On October 17, 2024, Remcan commenced this Superior Court action against the Union Organizers personally, without naming LIUNA. The Statement of Claim alleged that Union Organizers lied to employees at Comfort Inn locations in North Bay and Brockville about their identities, causing distressed employees to sign membership cards; that Stuart Wallace, a Remcan supervisor, was paid to leak confidential vehicle-tracking information used to strategically file certification applications (conduct Remcan characterized as bribery); and that the claims against Mr. Wallace have been settled. Remcan sought damages of $100,000 for inducing breach of contract, $250,000 for intentional interference with contractual relations, $250,000 for civil conspiracy, and $500,000 in punitive damages, plus an injunction. The defendant Union Organizers moved to stay the action.

Statutory provisions and clauses at issue

Several provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 were central. Section 76 prohibits any person from seeking "by intimidation or coercion" to compel any person to become or refrain from becoming a member of a trade union. Section 114(1) gives the Board "exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred upon it by or under this Act and to determine all questions of fact or law that arise in any matter before it." Section 128.1(5) permits the Board, in construction-industry card-based certification applications, to consider evidence relating to alleged contraventions of ss. 70, 72, or 76 or to fraud or misrepresentation. Sections 96, 11.1, and 128.1(8) and (9) empower the Board to remedy contraventions, order damages by way of rectification, dismiss certification applications, or order new votes. The defendants also invoked ss. 2 and 3 of the Rights of Labour Act, which protect trade unions and their members from actions premised on restraint of trade, and rr. 21.01(1)(b) and 21.01(3)(a), (c), and (d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Applying the two-part framework from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, Justice Papageorgiou examined the substance of the Board's jurisdiction and the essential character of the dispute. The court found the Board has specialized expertise in labour relations, including the distinct subspecialty of construction labour relations, and that the essential character of Remcan's complaints related to the Union's organizing campaign and the certification process over which the Board has exclusive jurisdiction under ss. 7 and 128.1. Remcan's argument that s. 76 could not capture the alleged bribery of Mr. Wallace — a supervisor outside any prospective bargaining unit — was rejected as overly narrow: the section, read remedially, encompasses intimidation or coercion "even if that intimidation or coercion is one step removed and begins with another party." The court further held that Remcan had already raised the same underlying facts in its submissions to the Board, making them questions of fact and law within the Board's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 114(1), and that recasting the complaints as torts did not change their essential character. On the Board's remedial powers, the court found it could dismiss the certification application, apply tort law principles, order rectification including damages, and grant interim relief. Notably, Remcan filed no evidence of its alleged damages, not even a bald statement in an affidavit, which the court described as fatal given the inference that the proceeding was a tactical attempt to interfere with certification. The court also found the action an abuse of process under rr. 21.01(3)(c) and (d), concluding it was commenced as a tactical maneuver to fight the organizing campaign on multiple fronts, since the substance of the Claim was against the Union and the same issues were pending before the Board. The court disagreed, however, that the Rights of Labour Act barred the proceeding, holding that ROLA does not prohibit actions alleging civil torts that would be actionable if committed by one individual. It likewise declined to strike the Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, noting that the alleged breaches of confidence and bribery-related harms went beyond non-justiciable certification harms, and that no evidence is admissible on a pleadings motion.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Papageorgiou granted the motion and stayed the action, finding the matters within the Board's exclusive jurisdiction and the proceeding an abuse of process. The outcome favoured the defendant Union Organizers — Stuart Wallace, Paul Hickey, Richard Rocco, Matthaeu Alloway, Malcolm Moffatt, and Michael Gallagher — who succeeded in halting Remcan's claim. No monetary amount was ordered or awarded in the decision itself; the court directed that the parties may make submissions on costs, with the Union Organizers to file within 7 days and Remcan within 7 days thereafter, so any costs award remains to be determined.