Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Local 558 et al., (2002) 280 N.R. 333 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 24, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 280 N.R. 333 (SCC);2002 SCC 8;265 WAC 22;JE 2002-268;[2002] 4 WWR 205;280 NR 333;90 CRR (2d) 189;[2002] 1 SCR 156;217 Sask R 22;[2002] SCJ No 7 (QL);208 DLR (4th) 385;111 ACWS (3d) 272

Pepsi-Cola Can. Beverages v. RWDSU (2002), 280 N.R. 333 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. JA.022

Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. (appellant) v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Local 558, Garry Burkart and Linda Reiber, personally and as Representatives of all the members of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Local 558 (respondents) and Attorney General for Alberta, Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) (intervenors)

(27060; 2002 SCC 8)

Indexed As: Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Local 558 et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

January 24, 2002.

Summary:

A labour-management dispute during the renegotiation of an expired collective agree­ment resulted in a contemporaneous strike and lockout. The employer applied for, and obtained, an interlocutory injunction re­straining the union from, inter alia, picketing at any location other than the employer's premises (i.e., retail outlets supplied by employer) and specifically, from picketing at the homes of the employer's employees. The union appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Wakeling, J.A., dissenting in part, in a judg­ment reported 172 Sask.R. 40; 185 W.A.C. 40, allowed the appeal in part. The court held that re­straining picketing at any location other than the employer's premises was overly broad and unsustainable in principle. However, the restraint of picketing at the homes of employees was affirmed. The actions of the striking employees constituted intimidation, actionable at the employer's instance, and also constituted a private nui­sance. The court noted that in Saskatchewan secondary pick­eting was not unlawful per se. The employer appealed, submitting that at common law secondary picketing was un­lawful per se.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court rejected the submission that secondary picketing was unlawful per se at common law. To achieve harmony between the common law and the Charter right to freedom of expression, secondary picketing was gen­erally law­ful unless it involved criminal acts or tortious conduct such as, inter alia, trespass, nui­sance, intimi­da­tion, defamation or misrepre­sentation.

Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Common law - The Supreme Court of Canada held that although the Charter did not apply to litigation between private parties governed by the common law, Charter values affected how the com­mon law was to be developed - The com­mon law grew with the Charter, not in isolation from it - Accordingly, the com­mon law respecting secondary picketing, unregulated by legislation, was to be inter­preted and modified in harmony with Charter values respecting freedom of ex­pression - See paragraphs 18 to 22.

Common Law - Topic 3221

Variation - Judicial variation - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "any change to the common law should be incremental. Proposed modifications that will have complex and far-reaching effects are in the proper domain of the legislature" - See paragraph 16.

Courts - Topic 28

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - The common law - Modification or extension of common law rule - [See Common Law - Topic 3221 ].

Injunctions - Topic 2505

Persons entitled to an injunction - Status or standing to apply - A primary employer sought an injunction to restrain secondary picket­ing at the premises of independent third parties - The striking union sub­mitted that only the third parties had standing to seek injunctive relief - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the primary employer had no status to seek injunctive relief respect­ing secondary picketing unless the employer was sub­jected to criminal or tortious con­duct - This did not preclude an employer from seeking injunctive relief respecting sec­ondary picketing - It just required that the employer's claim be based on a speci­fic tort - The court noted that some torts, such as intimidation, would be actionable by the employer whether the person intim­idated was the employer or the third party (such as an employee) - See paragraphs 111 to 113.

Injunctions - Topic 6303

Particular matters - Injury to trade - Sec­ondary picketing - [See Labour Law - Topic 8164 and Labour Law - Topic 8870 ].

Labour Law - Topic 8164

Industrial relations - Picketing - Right to picket - Secondary picketing - Saskatche­wan, unlike some juris­dictions, had no legislation pro­hibiting or regulating sec­ond­ary picketing - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission that sec­ondary picketing was unlawful per se at common law - To achieve har­mony be­tween the common law and Charter values respecting freedom of expression, second­ary picketing was gen­erally law­ful unless it involved criminal acts or tortious con­duct such as trespass, nuisance, intimi­dation, defamation or misrepresenta­tion - An absolute pro­hib­ition on second­ary picket­ing risked unduly compromising freedom of express­ion - Third parties sub­ject to secondary picket­ing are entitled to protec­tion from "undue" suffering, but are not entirely insulated from the reper­cussions of labour conflict - See para­graphs 23 to 118.

Labour Law - Topic 8870

Industrial relations - Remedies - Injunc­tions - Interim - Picketing - To restrain - A labour-management dispute during the renegotiation of an expired collective agreement resulted in a contemporaneous strike and lockout - The employer applied for, and obtained, an interlocutory injunc­tion restraining the union from, inter alia, picketing at any location other than the employer's premises (i.e., retail outlets supplied by employer) and specifically, from picketing at the homes of the em­ployer's employees - The union appealed -The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that restraining picketing at any location other than the employer's premises (sec­ondary picketing) was overly broad and unsus­tainable in principle - Secondary picketing was not unlawful per se and absent an accompanying actionable tort, injunctive relief was un­available - How­ever, the restraint of pick­eting at the homes of employees was justified - The actions of the striking employees consti­tuted intimi­dation, action­able at the em­ployer's instance, and a private nuisance - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - Secondary picket­ing without criminal or tortious conduct was lawful - The picketing at employees' homes consti­tuted tortious conduct and was justifiably enjoined - See paragraphs 23 to 118.

Cases Noticed:

Hersees of Woodstock Ltd. v. Goldstein et al. (1963), 38 D.L.R.(2d) 449 (Ont. C.A.), disappvd. [para. 10].

R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; 128 N.R. 321; 49 O.A.C. 83, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 16].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 16].

Friedmann Equity Developments Inc. v. Final Note Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 842; 255 N.R. 80; 134 O.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 16].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 19].

Hill v. Church of Scientology and Man­ning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 22].

Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada, Re, [1994] O.L.R.B. Rep. March 303 (L.R.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Daishowa Inc. v. Friends of the Lubicon et al. (1998), 56 O.T.C. 161; 39 O.R.(3d) 620 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1083; 245 N.R. 1; 128 B.C.A.C. 1; 208 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Em­ployees' Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd. et al. (2001), 276 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Dunmore et al. v. Ontario (Attorney Gen­eral) et al. (2001), 279 N.R. 201; 154 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Patchett (A.L.) & Sons Ltd. v. Pacific Great Eastern Railway Co., [1959] S.C.R. 271, refd to. [para. 54].

Lescar Construction Co. v. Wigman, [1969] 2 O.R. 846 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Refrigeration Supplies Co. v. Ellis, [1971] 1 O.R. 190 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Nedco Ltd. v. Clark (1973), 43 D.L.R.(3d) 714 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Nedco Ltd. v. Nichols (1973), 38 D.L.R.(3d) 664 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Domtar Chemicals Ltd. v. Leddy (1973), 37 D.L.R.(3d) 73 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Inglis Ltd. v. Rao (1974), 2 O.R.(2d) 525 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Magasins Continental Ltée v. Syndicat des employé(es) de commerce de Mont-Laurier (C.S.N.), [1988] R.J.Q. 1195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

2985420 Canada Inc. v. Fédération du Commerce Inc., [1995] R.J.Q. 44 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Kiewit (Peter) Sons Ltd. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 852 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

McLean Trucking Co. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (1983), 83 C.L.L.C. 14.047 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Henry (Alex) & Son Ltd. v. Gale (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 311 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada Ltd. v. Sundy (1974), 2 O.R.(2d) 601 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. v. Tye, [1971] O.J. No. 11 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Air Canada v. Canadian Airlines Pilots Association, [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 97; 28 B.C.L.R.(3d) 159 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Soo-Security Motorways Ltd. v. Kowal­chuk (1980), 9 Sask.R. 354 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59].

683481 Ontario Ltd. v. Beattie (1990), 73 D.L.R.(4th) 346 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Neumann and Young Ltd. v. O'Rourke (1974), 53 D.L.R.(3d) 11 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

O.K. Economy Stores v. Retail Wholesale Department Store Union, Local 454 (1995), 123 Sask.R. 245; 74 W.A.C. 245; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Heather Hill Appliances Ltd. v. McCor­mack (1965), 52 D.L.R.(2d) 292 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

Robert Yates Corp. v. Fitzgerald (1965), 65 C.L.L.C. 14091 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

Toronto Harbour Commissioners v. Snin­sky (1967), 64 D.L.R.(2d) 276 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

CTV Television Network Ltd. v. Kostenuk (1972), 26 D.L.R.(3d) 385 (Ont. S.C.), affd. (1978), 28 D.L.R.(3d) 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Ellis (J.S.) & Co. v. Willis (1972), 30 D.L.R.(3d) 397 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

Rocca Construction Ltd. v. United Associ­ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S.A. and Canada, Local 721 (1971), 21 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 198; 56 A.P.R. 198 (P.E.I.S.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

PCL Construction Management Inc. v. Mills et al. (1995), 124 Sask.R. 127 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 61].

Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. v. Pomeroy et al. (1999), 91 O.T.C. 352; 49 C.L.R.B.R.(2d) 285 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 61].

Williams v. Aristocratic Restaurants (1947) Ltd., [1951] S.C.R. 762, refd to. [para. 63].

Brett Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd. v. National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, Local 920 (1989), 90 N.S.R.(2d) 342; 230 A.P.R. 342 (T.D.), leave to appeal denied (1989), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 398; 247 A.P.R. 398 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Provincial Express Ltd. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (1991), 94 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 75; 298 A.P.R. 75 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 64].

Domtar Inc., Re, [2000] O.L.R.D. No. 3761 (L.R.B.), refd to. [para. 95].

National Labour Relations Board v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers and Warehouse­men, Local 760 (1964), 377 U.S. 58, refd to. [para. 99].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2(b), sect. 2(d), sect. 32(1) [para. 13].

Trade Union Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. T-17, sect. 27 [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed. 1993) (loose-leaf update Nov­ember 2001, Release 16), pp. 1-11 to 1-15 [para. 25].

Arthurs, H.W., Labour Law - Secondary Picket­ing - Per Se Illegality - Public Policy (1963), 41 Can. Bar Rev. 573, p. 582 [para. 54].

Beatty, D.M., Secondary Boycotts: A Functional Analysis (1974), 52 Can. Bar Rev. 388, generally [para. 53].

Carrothers, A.W.R., Palmer, E.E., and Rayner, W.B., Collective Bargaining Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1986), pp. 609, 610 [para. 26].

Cox, Archibald, Strikes, Picketing and the Constitution (1951), 4 Vand. L. Rev. 574, generally [para. 95].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (9th Ed.), pp. 765 to 777 [para. 72].

Counsel:

Robert G. Richards, Q.C., and M. Jean Torrens, for the appellant;

Larry W. Kowalchuk, for the respondents;

Roderick Wiltshire, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Alberta;

John Baigent, for the intervenor, Canadian Labour Congress;

David Sherriff-Scott, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA).

Solicitors of Record:

MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the appellant;

Kowalchuk Law Office, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the respondents;

Alberta Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Alberta;

Baigent & Jackson, Enderby, B.C., for the intervenor, Canadian Labour Congress;

Borden Elliot Scott & Aylen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA).

This appeal was heard on October 31, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 24, 2002, McLachlin, C.J.C., and LeBel, JJ., delivered the following joint reasons in both official languages for the Court.