The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Injunction Decision in Christie Pits Picketing Dispute

by David Doorey July 21, 2009
written by David Doorey July 21, 2009

The City of Toronto recently obtained an injunction that prevented picketers at Christie Pits from obstructing a bug spraying of the garbage and standing water removal.  Here is the Court’s decision. Its useful to labour law students to understand how these injunctions work.
The trick in labour injunctions is for the employer to convince the court that the picketers are engaging in some sort of unlawful conduct, usually a tort, such as obstruction or nuisance, or causing injury to persons, that ‘irreparable harm’ will result if the injunction is not granted, and that that harm outweighs any harm to the picketers associated with the granting of the injunction.  In addition, in Ontario, Section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act requires that the police first be called, and that they be unable to prevent the obstruction or injury.
In this case, CUPE argued that it had not actually obstructed the truck and that, in any event, the requirement for the police to be unsuccessful in preventing the obstruction had not been met.  The Court disagreed.  It found that the union’s warning that the truck would not be permitted to cross the picket line was sufficient to warrant a finding of unlawful obstruction, since the driver shouldn’t have to provoke an escalation of hostilities by attempting to test the picketers’ will.  And the requirement of police involvement was met here, since the police had taken the position they would not take any action against the picketers without an injunction.
Having satisfied the Courts of Justice Act requirements, the Court then ruled that the other conditions for a labour injunction had been met:  the potential harm to the public of a pest infestation could not be adequately remedied later by compensation, and that harm outweighed the limited restriction on the union’s picketing rights here.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Media and the Toronto Strike
next post
New Brunswick Government Violates Charter Right of Casual Workers to Collective Bargaining

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

TheLawofWork Follow

@ ·
now

Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter Like on Twitter Twitter
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.