Underlying labour dispute involves employees’ strike against Canada Post
The Ontario Court of Appeal found notice necessary for a motion for an injunction to restrain activity with an identifiable and distinct connection to a labour dispute, regardless of whether the moving party was a “disputant” in the underlying dispute.
Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2026 ONCA 515, arose because Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) members were on strike against their employer, Canada Post Corporation.
Purolator Inc., a private Canadian courier company, obtained injunctions in November and December 2024 to stop CUPW members from picketing at its Ontario premises.
Although s. 102 of Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act, 1990 (CJA), did not allow ex parte injunctions for labour disputes except in some limited circumstances, Purolator initially moved for an injunction on an ex parte basis.
A judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that s. 102 did not apply because Purolator and CUPW were not parties to a labour dispute. Instead, the motion judge issued an interim injunction on an ex parte basis under s. 101 of the CJA.
CUPW appealed. The union alleged that s. 102, not s. 101, applied.
Purolator moved to quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Purolator asserted that CUPW should have appealed before the Divisional Court with leave under s. 19(1)(b) of the CJA because the motion judge issued the injunction under s. 101.
On July 30, 2025, a three-judge panel of the appeal court dismissed Purolator’s motion to quash. The panel decided that the appeal court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal’s merits under s. 102(10) of the CJA because s. 102 substantially governed the injunction’s issuance.
Injunction set aside
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the merits appeal and set aside the injunction.
The appeal court considered the appeal moot because the injunction expired on Jan. 15, 2025, and the parties no longer had a live controversy regarding picketing at the Purolator facility. However, the appeal court exercised its discretion to rule on the proper interpretation of s. 102 of the CJA.
The appeal court found it unnecessary to decide whether the panel’s July 30, 2025, jurisdictional decision resolved the appeal’s substantive merits, as it confirmed that s. 102 governed the injunction’s issuance.
Applicability of s. 102
The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that CUPW’s picketing of Purolator’s premises was “an act in connection with a labour dispute” under s. 102 of the CJA.
Thus, the appeal court saw an error in the motion judge’s issuance of the injunction under s. 101, rather than s. 102. The appeal court added that the judge could only have issued an injunction if there was compliance with the notice requirement in s. 102(2) of the CJA.
As Purolator did not dispute the lack of the required notice, the appeal court concluded that the motion judge issued the injunction without jurisdiction due to noncompliance with s. 102’s procedure.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest labour and employment law news on the main page!
