The G.M. Injunction

Here’s yet another story about the G.M. events, this time involving G.M.’s attempt to obtain an injunction to stop the CAW members and supporters from picketing outside the company’s head offices and damages amounting to $1.5 million.  Picketing and peaceful protest is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the Supreme Court confirmed recently in two cases, K-Mart Canada and Pepsi-Cola Canada.  But the Court also made clear that the picketing and protest cannot be done in a manner that amounts to a tort.   I have not seen G.M.’s pleadings (although I am trying to get them), so I don’t know what tort G.M. alleged.  Presumably, though, given the numbers of picketers and G.M.’s allegation that they are preventing G.M. employees from entering the workplace, the claims likely allege nuisance, obstruction, or intimidation. 
Union members cannot physically obstruct or prevent people from entering workplaces.  Watch the news today to see how the Court decides the case.  Usually, if a tort is found (and sometimes even when one is not found!), courts will impose controls on the picketing in terms of the time that cars can be stopped.  What do you think of G.M.’s claim for damages?  The car/truck assembly plants have not been affected, so the damages must relate to the difficulty office workers are having getting to their workstations.  It is relatively rare for courts to order damages against unions, and in Ontario, unions do not even exist as legal persons because of the Rights of Labour Act,  s. 3.2. so they cannot be sued.  G.M. must have named individual union members or leaders personally, but (again) I haven’t seen the pleadings to I’m not sure about that.  I’ll update this post if I can get the pleadings.