Daniel Edward Attwell

The plaintiff, Bank-Strox Renovation Inc., sought an urgent interim and interlocutory injunction against Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, Derek Melo, and other unidentified individuals, to restrain unlawful picketing activities during a legal strike.

The court found that the plaintiff had made reasonable efforts to obtain police assistance, which proved unsuccessful in preventing ongoing obstruction, trespass, threats, and physical altercations at multiple job sites.

The court determined there was a serious issue to be tried and a reasonable likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business and goodwill.

Balancing the constitutional right to picket with the employer's right to carry on business, the court granted an interlocutory injunction against the Union and its members, agents, and representatives, but denied it against Derek Melo personally due to insufficient evidence.

The injunction included terms for a brief vehicle delay and a come-back provision for future amendments.

The appellant appealed from a partial summary judgment order in which the respondents obtained declarations that the appellant was not entitled to commissions or any increased compensation for changes in his employment.

The appellant had been employed as Business Development Manager from May 2014 until his termination in January 2016.

The appellant objected to the partial summary judgment procedure and argued he had inadequate time to advance his case.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in granting partial summary judgment and rejecting the appellant's late attempt to raise the doctrine of quantum meruit on appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking declarations that the plaintiff was not contractually or legally entitled to commissions or increased compensation as alleged in his statement of claim, arising from an oral employment contract.

Following a mini-trial, the court assessed the credibility of the plaintiff and the defendant's president, applying principles for establishing oral contracts.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove a consensus on the alleged contractual terms beyond the agreed-upon salary and vehicle allowance, noting inconsistencies in his evidence and the absence of supporting documentation.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, declaring the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed commissions or increased compensation.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction restraining union members from blockading its premises and engaging in intimidation and other unlawful conduct during a labour dispute.

Evidence established that picketers blocked trucks carrying materials from entering or leaving the employer’s facility and intimidated employees who continued working at residential construction sites.

The court held that picketing is lawful only when it constitutes communication and not obstruction or blockade.

The deliberate obstruction of property access and threats against workers constituted tortious and unlawful conduct, satisfying the requirements for interlocutory relief.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring the employer.

An interlocutory injunction was granted establishing an ingress/egress protocol and prohibiting tortious and unlawful conduct by union members.