|
Jurisdiction - Formality Irrelevant to Jurisdiction. Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers
In Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses an employer's motion to quash a union's appeal, this appeal from "an ex parte interim injunction ... which enjoined CUPW members from picketing at the Facility or any other of Purolator’s premises in the province of Ontario ...".
Here the court declines to quash a labour injunction appeal (for being in the wrong court) even though it was commenced and decided under the wrong CJA provision, here on the basis that the error was immaterial and formal only:C. CUPW’s appeal lies to this court
[56] Purolator submits that even if s. 102 governed the motion at first instance, CUPW must pursue its appeal under s. 19(1) of the CJA because the motion judge made the Orders pursuant to s. 101 of the CJA. I reject that submission. Treating the motion judge’s reasons as dispositive of the court’s jurisdiction offends the principle that jurisdiction exists independently of any assumption of jurisdiction below.
[57] Jurisdiction is fundamental to a court’s authority to deal with a matter. It is not optional, cannot be conferred by consent, cured by attornment, or assumed voluntarily just because there is an interesting and significant issue to be considered: J. N. v. Durham Regional Police Service, 2012 ONCA 428, 284 C.C.C. (3d) 500, at para. 25. This court has held repeatedly, when deciding motions to quash based on an alleged lack of jurisdiction, that it cannot engage in a superficial review of the orders under appeal. Rather, it must focus on the nature and substance of those orders: Paulpillai Estate v. Yusef, 2020 ONCA 655, at para. 16, citing Prescott & Russell (United Counties) v. David S. Laflamme Constructions Inc., 2018 ONCA 495, 142 O.R. (3d) 317, at para. 7. In short, the jurisdiction of this court is “governed by the substance of the order made”: Arcamm Electrical Services Ltd. v. Avison Young Real Estate Management Services LP, 2024 ONCA 251, at para. 14, relying on Dal Bianco v. Deem Management Services Limited, 2020 ONCA 585, 82 C.B.R. (6th) 161, at para. 11, citing RREF II BHB IV Portofino, LLC v. Portofino Corporation, 2015 ONCA 906, 33 C.B.R. (6th) 9, at para. 12.
[58] The fact the motion judge decided the injunction motions under s. 101 does not alter the substance of the Orders. The substance of the Orders is to enjoin secondary picketing in a labour dispute. CUPW and its members were engaged in a lawful strike relating to working conditions at Canada Post. As part of the lawful strike, CUPW engaged in secondary picketing at the Purolator Facility. Purolator is a related entity that was providing competing services. Because Purolator sought to enjoin the secondary picketing, s. 102 governed its motion for an interim injunction and CUPW’s appeal of the Orders lies to this court, pursuant to s. 102(10) of the CJA.
[59] In conclusion, while the motion judge erroneously decided the motion under s. 101 of the CJA, that jurisdictional error should not, and does not, define the route by which the appeal should be decided.
|
