Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- Can Courts Bypass Labour Injunction Rules in Ontario?
- Court / Tribunal
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 515 ↗
- Date
- July 14, 2026
- Area of law
- Employment Law
- Key issue
- Whether section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act applies to secondary picketing by a union in connection with a labour dispute, and what procedural requirements must be met before an injunction can issue.
- Outcome
- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction, finding it was issued without jurisdiction because the required section 102 notice was not given before ex parte relief was granted.
- Why it matters
- Employers and unions both need to understand that Ontario courts cannot shortcut the mandatory notice rules when seeking or opposing injunctions in labour disputes — skipping those steps voids the order entirely.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
Section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act sets out special procedural rules that apply whenever a court is asked to grant an injunction in connection with a labour dispute. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the phrase 'in connection with a labour dispute' should be read broadly — consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's approach in Pepsi-Cola — so that secondary picketing (picketing at a location other than the primary employer's premises) falls within those rules when it arises out of an ongoing labour dispute. Because s. 102 applies, a party seeking an ex parte injunction (one granted without the other side being present) must first provide the notice required by the statute. If that notice is not given, the court simply does not have jurisdiction to grant the order. An injunction issued without following those steps is void, not merely irregular — meaning it must be set aside even if the underlying conduct might otherwise have justified some form of relief.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This decision does not mean that courts will never grant injunctions against picketing or other union activity. It means the correct procedural path under s. 102 must be followed first. Once proper notice is given and the statutory requirements are met, a court retains full authority to consider whether injunctive relief is appropriate on the merits. The Court of Appeal also declined to rule on whether the geographic scope or breadth of the original injunction was appropriate, because that question was highly fact-specific and the injunction had already expired. Readers should not treat this case as settling any question about how broadly a labour injunction can be worded — that issue remains open for another day.
Does Section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act Apply to Secondary Picketing?
Yes — when secondary picketing arises out of an ongoing labour dispute, section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act applies, and its procedural requirements are mandatory. The Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed this in Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2026 ONCA 515 (CanLII), adopting a broad reading of the phrase “in connection with a labour dispute” that aligns with how the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted similar language.
Secondary picketing means picketing that takes place somewhere other than the primary employer’s own premises — for example, at a customer’s or supplier’s location. The question before the court was whether that kind of picketing still triggers the special injunction rules in s. 102, or whether those rules only apply to picketing at the main workplace. The answer: the connection to the labour dispute is what matters, not the physical location of the picket line.
What Are the Section 102 Notice Requirements?
Section 102 requires that before a court grants an ex parte injunction in a labour dispute — meaning an injunction issued without the other side being present or notified — the party seeking the order must first give the notice prescribed by the statute. This is not a technicality that courts can waive in the interest of speed or convenience.
An ex parte order is sometimes sought when a party argues that giving notice would cause immediate harm or that the situation is too urgent to wait. In ordinary civil litigation, courts have some flexibility around ex parte relief. In labour disputes, s. 102 removes that flexibility: the notice requirement is a precondition to jurisdiction. If it is not satisfied, the court has no authority to make the order at all.
What Happens If a Court Ignores These Rules?
The injunction is void. When the motion judge granted the injunction in this case without the required s. 102 notice having been given, the order was made without jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal set it aside entirely on that basis.
This is a significant consequence. It means that even if the conduct being restrained was genuinely problematic, the procedural shortcut cannot be cured after the fact. The proper remedy is to start again, this time following the correct process.
Why Did the Court Hear a Moot Case?
By the time the appeal was decided, the injunction had already expired and the underlying labour dispute had been resolved. Normally, courts decline to decide cases that no longer have any live practical effect — this is called the mootness doctrine.
The Court of Appeal exercised its discretion under the Borowski framework to decide the s. 102 issue anyway. The court found that the question of how broadly s. 102 applies is genuinely important, that it is likely to arise again in future disputes, and that it would otherwise escape appellate review because labour injunctions are often spent before an appeal can be heard. The adversarial context was also preserved — both sides had strong, opposing positions and argued them fully.
Did the Court Rule on the Scope of the Injunction?
No — the Court of Appeal declined to address whether the original injunction was too broad in geographic reach or otherwise. That question was described as highly fact-specific, dependent on a large body of affidavit evidence about past picketing activity, and of limited value as precedent.
This restraint reflects a broader principle: appellate courts should not spend judicial resources resolving fact-intensive questions that will not help future litigants. The s. 102 jurisdictional issue, by contrast, is a pure question of statutory interpretation that will recur.
What Does This Mean for Employers Seeking Labour Injunctions in Ontario?
An employer who wants to stop picketing — whether at its own premises or elsewhere — must follow the s. 102 process if the picketing is connected to a labour dispute. Attempting to obtain emergency ex parte relief without giving the required notice will result in the order being struck down, wasting time and legal costs.
This does not mean injunctive relief is unavailable. It means the process must be done correctly from the start. Our Ontario employment lawyers regularly advise employers and employees on injunction procedure, workplace disputes, and the rights of all parties during labour actions.
Practical Takeaways for Employers and Unions
- Notice is mandatory, not optional: In any labour dispute, s. 102 notice must be given before an ex parte injunction can be sought. There is no judicial discretion to skip this step.
- Secondary picketing is covered: If the picketing is connected to a labour dispute, it falls under s. 102 regardless of where it takes place.
- A void order cannot be fixed retroactively: If an injunction is obtained without jurisdiction, it will be set aside on appeal — even if the underlying conduct was problematic.
- Speed does not justify shortcuts: Urgency is not a basis to bypass the statutory notice requirement in labour matters.
- Scope questions remain open: How broadly a labour injunction can be worded — geographically or otherwise — was not decided in this case and will depend on the specific facts of each dispute.
If your business is facing picketing activity or you are a worker whose rights may be affected by an injunction, getting early legal advice is essential. Employers in the Hamilton and Burlington corridor can connect with our team at our Burlington employment law office, and clients across the Greater Toronto Area are welcome to reach out through our Mississauga employment law page.
UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from our Burlington office and serves clients across Ontario. Whether you are an employer dealing with a labour action or an employee whose workplace rights are at stake, contact us to speak with a member of our employment law team about your situation.
This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Section 102 sets out special procedural rules that apply when a court is asked to grant an injunction in connection with a labour dispute, including a mandatory notice requirement before any ex parte (without notice) order can be made.
Yes, but only by following the specific process in s. 102 of the Courts of Justice Act, which requires giving proper notice before seeking ex parte relief. Skipping that step means the court has no jurisdiction to grant the order.
Secondary picketing means picketing at a location other than the primary employer's premises, such as at a supplier or customer. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized it as generally protected expression, though it can be subject to court orders when it involves unlawful conduct and proper procedures are followed.