Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2022-06-23 Docket: C70023

Before: Huscroft, Nordheimer and Copeland JJ.A.

Between:

De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Plaintiff (Respondent)

And

Jerry Dias, Scott Mcilmoyle and David Molenhuis as representatives of members of Unifor Local 112 and Unifor Local 673 Defendants (Appellants)

Counsel: Anthony Dale and Laura Sullivan, for the appellants Peter W.F. Carey and Howard A. Levitt, for the respondent

Heard: June 22, 2022

On appeal from the order of Justice Frederick L. Myers of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 17, 2021.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant union appeals from an injunction that was granted during a labour dispute in August 2021.

[2] The respondent brought a motion for an emergency injunction seeking to enjoin a blockade of the employer’s premises. The appellants admitted their actions were illegal, harm was irreparable, and an injunction was justified. They contested only the balance of convenience consideration.

[3] The motion judge granted the injunction. Pursuant to the first part of the injunction, no persons were permitted to interfere with, block, obstruct or delay, in any way whatsoever, the entry of vehicles or people into the East Gate of the respondent’s facilities at Downsview Airport. Pursuant to the second part, informational picketers were not to come within a 20m radius of the East Gate turnstiles, with the exception of a single picketer every five minutes who could walk across the entrances and exits, provided they are walking continuously and complete the crossing within one minute. The appellants argue that the second part of the injunction unnecessarily restrained lawful strike activity and went beyond the terms necessary to prevent a recurrence of harm.

[4] It is plain that the appeal is moot. The appellant acknowledges as much. All of the issues between the parties were settled in October 2021. That being so, the question is whether this court should exercise its discretion to hear the appeal. The burden is on the appellant to establish that we should.

[5] We are not persuaded that we should exercise our discretion to hear this appeal. The motion judge made a discretionary decision designed to stop an illegal blockade and prevent it from recurring. The order granted was fact specific and does not raise any questions of public importance. The decision has no impact beyond the parties to the now-resolved dispute.

[6] The appeal is dismissed. The fresh evidence motion is dismissed.

[7] The respondent is entitled to costs fixed in the amount of $20,000, all inclusive. We make no order as to costs on the fresh evidence motion.

“Grant Huscroft J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”

“J. Copeland J.A.”