Ruling says BC Supreme Court could issue interim injunction before arbitrator determined
In a union’s grievances challenging consolidations introduced by TELUS Communications Inc., the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal challenging the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s jurisdiction to grant interim injunctive relief before an arbitrator was in place.
In TELUS Communications Inc. v. Telecommunications Workers Union, 2026 BCCA 5, the parties were TELUS, a federally regulated employer, and the Telecommunications Workers Union, United Steelworkers Local Union 1944. They had a collective agreement providing for arbitration.
On July 9, 2024, TELUS notified the union that it planned to consolidate some call centres in four Canadian provinces and redistribute the work. Under the consolidations:
- Around 1,000 union members, nearly all of whom worked remotely as customer experience agents, should work from the office three times weekly
- 140 members should move from Barrie, Ontario, to Montreal, Quebec
Receiving written notice on July 10, 2024, the members had to indicate their choice between accepting the changes and accepting voluntary severance packages by Aug. 9, 2024.
On July 29, 2024, the union brought two policy grievances under the collective agreement to challenge the consolidations, as well as a notice of civil claim requesting an interim injunction to prevent TELUS from requiring the impacted members to indicate their choice by Aug. 9, 2024.
According to TELUS, the BC Supreme Court should not grant an injunction because this issue fell within the arbitrator’s exclusive authority. The union countered that the court had inherent authority to fill the remedial gap and avoid irreparable harm until an arbitrator’s appointment.
On Aug. 8, 2024, a chambers judge of the BC Supreme Court determined that he had the jurisdiction to issue an interim injunction in the circumstances. Applying RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311, he restrained TELUS from requiring the affected members to state their choice by Aug. 9, 2024.
The injunction would expire two months after an arbitrator’s appointment, subject to the parties’ written agreement or another court order. TELUS appealed the injunction.
Injunction upheld
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal. Although the interim injunction had since expired, the appeal court recognized that the legal questions involved in the proceeding would benefit from appellate consideration.
The appeal court accepted that an arbitrator in the federal labour relations context had the statutory authority to issue interim injunctive relief.
However, the appeal court concluded that the judge correctly found that the BC Supreme Court had the inherent jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction until an appointed arbitrator assumed jurisdiction over the dispute.
According to the appeal court, at the time of the injunction application, the BC Supreme Court was the only tribunal that could resolve the matter potentially resulting in irreparable harm to the union’s affected members.
In reaching this conclusion, the appeal court acknowledged that it was filling a remedial gap and ensuring the availability of a forum to prevent irreparable harm.
Next, recognizing the judge’s discretionary exercise, the appeal court refused to interfere with the injunction’s two-month expiry date.
The appeal court noted that the judge included terms that allowed some flexibility, recognizing that the injunction was an interim remedy, that the appointed arbitrator would have ‘domain’ over injunctive relief, and that TELUS could raise the issue with the arbitrator.
Lastly, the appeal court deferred to the judge’s discretionary decision not to require an undertaking regarding damages, given that TELUS showed no material errors of law or principle, or palpable and overriding factual errors.
