Adrienne Telford

The plaintiff sought to extend an ex parte interim injunction restraining the respondents from picketing at its premises in a manner that blocked vehicles.

The respondent union requested amendments to the order, specifically to remove a provision precluding the inducing of breach of contract and to narrow the scope of the order to the specific premises rather than province-wide.

The court dismissed the union's requests, finding that the tort of inducing breach of contract does not capture legitimate free speech or boycotts, and that a province-wide order was a preferable use of judicial resources.

The injunction was extended for a further 30 days.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act that imposed a 12-month pre-writ restricted spending period for third-party political advertising.

The government had previously enacted similar amendments that were struck down under section 2(b) of the Charter, but re-enacted them using the section 33 notwithstanding clause.

The applicants argued the amendments violated the right to vote under section 3 of the Charter, which is not subject to the notwithstanding clause.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the spending limits were carefully tailored to the egalitarian model of elections and did not infringe the right to meaningful participation in the electoral process.

Following a successful constitutional challenge to back-to-work legislation, the applicants sought costs against the intervener, the employer.

The intervener sought costs against the applicants for a subsequent unsuccessful remedial motion.

The court analyzed the general rule that interveners are neither liable for nor entitled to costs, and the exceptions based on the intervener's direct private interest and level of participation.

The court found the intervener had a direct private interest in both proceedings.

The court ordered the intervener to pay $54,000 in costs for the main application, and ordered the applicants to pay $26,000 to the intervener for the remedial motion.

The applicant union challenged the constitutionality of the Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, back-to-work legislation enacted in response to rotating strikes and a nationwide lockout.

The Act mandated the resumption of mail delivery, extended the previous collective agreement, prohibited strike activity, and imposed a final offer selection arbitration process.

The court found that the Act violated the guarantee of freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by substantially interfering with a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

The court also found that the Act violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) by prohibiting strike activity, which conveys meaning.

Neither violation was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court declared the Act unconstitutional and of no force or effect retroactively.

During the hearing of an application, the intervener provided a chart that was not entered into evidence.

The court indicated that a further chart could be jointly submitted post-hearing only if all parties agreed to its contents.

As the parties were unable to agree, the court ruled that no further charts, including one submitted by the applicants, would be accepted for filing.

The applicant unions brought an application seeking a declaration that the Expenditure Restraint Act is unconstitutional and of no force and effect, arguing it violated their members' freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by rolling back and capping wage increases.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the legislation did not substantially interfere with the freedom of association, as it applied broadly across the federal public sector and did not target associational activities.

The court further held that even if there was a breach of s. 2(d), it would be saved under s. 1 of the Charter as a demonstrably justified response to the 2008 global economic crisis.