3 total
Court grants injunction limiting picketing delays during lawful strike.
The employer sought an interlocutory injunction restricting picketing during a lawful strike at one of its warehouse facilities.
The union’s picketing activities caused substantial delays for vehicles entering and exiting several warehouse locations, effectively disrupting operations despite remaining largely peaceful.
The court applied the interlocutory injunction framework from RJR‑MacDonald and considered the special context of labour disputes and the balance between property access rights and constitutionally protected expressive activity in picketing.
The court held that while employers are entitled to access their property, labour picketing may justify some degree of inconvenience and delay as part of the economic dynamics of a strike.
An injunction was granted permitting continued picketing but limiting the extent of delays in accessing the employer’s facilities.
Human rights application against union dismissed at summary hearing for lacking evidence of discrimination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race and colour against her union.
She claimed the union failed to adequately support her and file a grievance following a workplace harassment dispute.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the union's alleged failure to represent her to her race or colour, and dismissed the application.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and place of origin, as well as reprisal, after he was unsuccessful in a third job competition for a foreperson position.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground under the Code.
The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations as untimely, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith.
