Judicature Act — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Judicature Act
If you are researching historical Ontario employment or labour law cases, you will frequently encounter references to the Judicature Act. Although this statute was repealed in 1984 and replaced by the modern Courts of Justice Act (CJA), its legal principles remain the foundation for how Ontario courts handle two major issues: prejudgment interest in wrongful dismissal claims, and the court's authority to issue injunctions during labour disputes.
Historically, Section 20 of the Judicature Act was a massive turning point for workers' rights in Ontario. Prior to this legislation, employers could often easily obtain court injunctions to stop union picketing or strikes. Section 20 severely restricted this power, establishing strict criteria before a judge could intervene in a "labour dispute." It required employers to prove not just that picketing was happening, but that there was actual danger of injury or property damage, and that local police were unable to manage the situation. Today, these exact protections live on under Section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act, ensuring that peaceful primary and secondary picketing are protected from rapid, one-sided corporate injunctions.
The second major legacy of the Judicature Act in employment law relates to court awards and damages. When a wrongfully dismissed employee sues for lost wages, years might pass between the termination date and the final court ruling. The Judicature Act established the statutory right to prejudgment interest—meaning the employer must pay interest on those lost wages for the time the employee spent waiting for justice. These calculation rules, determining whether interest applies to the whole amount or is staggered depending on when the wages would have been earned, are still debated today under the successor CJA.
Understanding how courts apply these statutory definitions is essential, whether you are a union defending a picket line or an individual claiming unpaid severance. Because mapping historical statutes to modern civil procedure involves complicated jurisdictional testing, anyone facing a civil employment lawsuit or a labour injunction should seek out a qualified legal professional to assess their specific circumstances.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happened to the Ontario Judicature Act?
The Ontario Judicature Act was repealed in 1984 and reorganized into the Courts of Justice Act (CJA). However, because many foundational employment and labour law cases were decided before 1984, the Judicature Act is still frequently cited in case law today.
Why do older wrongful dismissal cases talk about the Judicature Act for interest?
The Act contained the original statutory rules for awarding prejudgment interest on damages, compensating plaintiffs for the time they waited for a trial. Today, whenever a fired employee claims interest on their lost wages, they do so based on those same principles, now located in Section 128 of the Courts of Justice Act.
What did Section 20 of the Judicature Act do for striking workers?
Section 20 made it significantly harder for employers to get court injunctions to break up strikes or pickets. It recognized a statutory definition of a "labour dispute" and forbade judges from stopping picket lines unless there was proof of severe property damage, violence, or that police were incapable of controlling the crowd.
Does the court still follow the Judicature Act rules for secondary picketing?
Yes, but under the updated Courts of Justice Act. The foundational rulings that determined whether secondary picketing (picketing a related business rather than the direct employer) qualified as a protected "labour dispute" under the Judicature Act still guide how judges rule on modern injunction requests.
When should I consult an employment lawyer about court rules or injunctions?
If you are a worker facing a court injunction on a picket line, or an employee drafting a Statement of Claim for wrongful dismissal, you should speak to a lawyer immediately. Procedural laws like the modern Courts of Justice Act dictate strict filing deadlines and calculation methods that can severely impact your case if missed.
Common Scenarios
- A trade union engages in secondary picketing at a public warehouse that stores goods for their employer. The warehouse owner tries to get a quick injunction to stop them, but the court uses the historical definitions rooted in the Judicature Act to rule that this is a protected labour dispute requiring a much higher threshold of proof for court intervention.
- A senior executive is wrongfully dismissed and wins their lawsuit three years later. The judge consults the procedural rules originating from the Judicature Act (now the CJA) to calculate the exact prejudgment interest owed on the three years of lost wages.
- An employer attempts to secure an interlocutory injunction to shut down mass picketing at their office doors. The union’s legal team successfully argues that under the statutory requirements established for labour disputes, the employer hasn't proven that the local police are unable to handle the crowd peacefully.
What You Should Know
- If you are reading an older, landmark employment case that mentions the Judicature Act, remember to check how that specific section translates to today's Courts of Justice Act.
- Always ensure that you explicitly claim prejudgment and post-judgment interest in your initial wrongful dismissal pleadings, in accordance with Ontario's civil procedure statutes.
- If you are involved in union organizing or strikes, know that employers cannot bypass police forces by running straight to a judge for a standard injunction; labour disputes have elevated protections.
- Do not attempt to calculate complex damages, interest, and costs awards on your own; rely on an experienced employment litigator who understands the current procedural rules.
Featured Cases
Rushton v. Lake Ontario Steel Co. Ltd.
1980 CanLII 1722 (ON SC) · 1980-05-28Wrongful Dismissal: Prejudgment Interest on Lost Wages
A wrongful dismissal case addressing the proper calculation of prejudgment interest on lost wages and whether the defendant's payment into court was sufficient to avoid costs. The court considered whether prejudgment interest should be included in determining if the plaintiff's recovery exceeded the payment into court.
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Weatherbee et al. Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Pullman et al.
1979 CanLII 1727 (ON SC) · 1979-08-10Secondary Picketing and Labour Dispute: Injunctions Under Judicature Act
A case involving secondary picketing by employees of a subsidiary on strike at the premises of a parent company. The court addressed whether such picketing constitutes a 'labour dispute' under section 20 of the Judicature Act and held that it may fall within the definition, while also determining that the provincial legislation was not ultra vires.
Blackstone Industrial Products Ltd. v. Parsons et al.
1979 CanLII 2134 (ON SC) · 1979-02-28Labour Dispute: Injunction Denied for Mass Picketing Under Judicature Act
A labour dispute involving mass picketing and alleged interference with access to business premises. The court denied an injunction application under section 20(3) of the Judicature Act, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm or unlawful conduct beyond police control.
Sasso Disposal Ltd. v. Webster et al.
1975 CanLII 402 (ON SC) · 1975-09-19Labour Dispute: Picketing by Related Company Employees and Injunction Denial
A labour dispute case involving employees of a related company picketing the plaintiff's premises during a lawful strike. The court addressed whether the picketing constitutes a labour dispute under section 20 of the Judicature Act and whether an interlocutory injunction could be granted in the absence of evidence of harm or obstruction.
Neumann and Young Ltd. v. O'Rourke et al.
1974 CanLII 850 (ON SC) · 1974-10-15Labour Dispute: Secondary Picketing at Public Warehouse
A labour dispute case involving members of a labour union engaged in secondary picketing at a public warehouse storing goods of a struck company. The court examined whether the picketing constituted a 'labour dispute' under the Judicature Act and whether the premises of the warehouse could be considered a 'place of business' of the struck company.
Dominion Auto Transit Co. Ltd. v. Cowle et al.
1974 CanLII 701 (ON SC) · 1974-08-15Labour Dispute: Secondary Picketing and Interim Injunction Granted
A merits decision involving a labour dispute over secondary picketing, where employees of one company picketed a third-party company's premises without any direct relationship or bargaining dispute. The court examined whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief for unlawful interference with its operations and interpreted the meaning of 'labour dispute' under the Judicature Act. The court granted an interim injunction due to irreparable harm caused by the picketing.
Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada Ltd. v. Sundy et al.
1974 CanLII 587 (ON SC) · 1974-02-21Labour Dispute: Secondary Picketing Found Lawful Under Judicature Act
A labour dispute case involving secondary picketing by a union against motel owners who were deemed landlords to the employer. The court determined that the picketing was directly connected to the labour dispute and lawful under the Judicature Act, dismissing the application to restrain the picketing.
Consumers Glass Co. Ltd. v. Melling et al.
1973 CanLII 787 (ON SC) · 1973-07-27Trade Union Rights in Injunction Proceedings
A labour dispute case involving a trade union's right to appear and make representations in injunction proceedings. The court addressed whether a trade union has the legal status to participate in such proceedings under section 20 of the Judicature Act.
CTV Television Network Ltd. v. Kostenuk et al.
1972 CanLII 665 (ON SC) · 1972-04-13Secondary Picketing and Ex Parte Injunctions in Labour Dispute
A labour and employment case addressing the legality of secondary picketing and the use of ex parte injunctions in the context of a labour dispute. The court considered whether secondary picketing is unlawful under Ontario law and whether a Local Judge may grant or rescind an ex parte injunction in the absence of a High Court Judge.
Texpack Ltd. v. Rowley et al.
1971 CanLII 457 (ON SC) · 1971-08-10Labour Dispute: Injunction Application to Restrain Picketing
An interlocutory injunction application in a labour dispute involving allegations of improper conduct by defendants and whether the court should grant an injunction to protect property and lawful business operations. The case also examines the scope of cross-examination under section 17(4) of the Judicature Act in the context of injunction applications.