Picketing — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Picketing
In Ontario, picketing is a highly visible and heavily regulated aspect of labour disputes, typically occurring during a lawful strike or lockout under the Labour Relations Act, 1995. At its core, picketing involves workers gathering outside a workplace—often alongside signs or banners—to communicate their position, persuade others not to cross the picket line, and cultivate public sympathy. While picketing is a fundamental tool for organized labour, it inherently creates friction between the striking workers' constitutional rights and the employer's right to protect its property and continue operations.
Ontario courts recognize that peaceful picketing is a protected form of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Workers are legally permitted to patrol the perimeter of their workplace, disseminate information, and attempt to persuade suppliers, customers, and other employees to join their cause. However, this right is not absolute. The law draws a firm line between peaceful persuasion and unlawful interference. Picketing becomes illegal if it crosses into tortious or criminal conduct, such as violence, intimidation, trespassing, vandalism, or completely obstructing access to the employer's premises.
When a picket line escalates from mere communication to effectively shutting down business operations by trapping vehicles or blocking entrances, employers routinely seek intervention from the courts. Rather than applying to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, employers typically bring an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an interlocutory injunction. To secure an injunction, the employer must provide detailed affidavit evidence demonstrating that the picketers' conduct is unlawful, that it is causing irreparable harm (such as severe economic loss or threats to public safety), and that police intervention has been insufficient or is impractical.
If the court agrees, it will typically issue an order strictly limiting how the picketing can be conducted—for example, by restricting the number of picketers allowed at each gate or specifying how many minutes picketers can delay a vehicle before letting it pass. Because the specifics of every labour dispute differ, resolving where protected expression ends and unlawful obstruction begins requires careful legal analysis of the facts on the ground.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is considered lawful picketing in Ontario?
Lawful picketing involves peacefully gathering outside a workplace to share information, communicate the union's message, and try to persuade others not to cross the line. Under Ontario law, it must not involve violence, threats, property damage, or the complete blockage of entrances and exits.
Can striking workers completely block me from entering my workplace?
No. While picketers are often legally allowed to briefly delay vehicles or pedestrians to communicate information, they cross into unlawful territory if they create a physical barricade that completely prevents access to the property.
Is picketing protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Yes, peaceful picketing is recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as a form of expression protected under Section 2(b) of the Charter. However, this constitutional protection does not extend to coercive, violent, or physically obstructive conduct.
What can an employer do if a picket line gets out of control?
If picketers engage in violence, intimidation, or severe obstruction, the employer can apply to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an interlocutory injunction to restrict the picketing activities, limit the number of participants, or ban specific behaviours.
Are union members allowed to picket at a business that isn't their direct employer?
This is known as secondary picketing. While it can be legal if it remains strictly informational and peaceful, it involves a complex balancing of rights because it impacts an uninvolved third party. You can read more about it on our dedicated Secondary Picketing page.
When is it necessary to hire a labour lawyer during a strike?
Any time a picket line risks escalating into physical obstruction, or if an employer believes their operations are being unlawfully restricted, obtaining fast, strategic legal counsel is critical. Injunction applications move at a rapid pace and require highly specific evidentiary standards.
Common Scenarios
- During a legal strike at a manufacturing plant, union members form a human chain across the main shipping gate, preventing all delivery trucks from entering for three consecutive days, leading the employer to file for an urgent court injunction.
- A group of municipal workers on strike peacefully patrol the public sidewalk outside City Hall, holding signs and handing out informational leaflets to members of the public without stopping anyone from entering the building.
- A labour dispute at an industrial warehouse escalates when picketers bang on the windows of vehicles driven by replacement workers, shouting threats and causing property damage, prompting immediate police intervention and legal action.
What You Should Know
- For unions: Clearly train all picket captains and members on the legal boundaries of information sharing versus unlawful obstruction to minimize the risk of handing the employer grounds for an injunction.
- For employers: If you intend to seek court intervention against an unruly picket line, strictly document every incident by logging times, dates, and specifically what occurred, backed by clear video evidence where permissible.
- Always prioritize physical safety on a picket line; drivers should never attempt to force their way through a crowd of picketers with a vehicle, and should instead rely on law enforcement or legal channels to clear a path.
- Because court orders relating to labour disputes hinge on highly specific nuances of expression versus property rights, consulting with experienced legal counsel before taking action on either side of the picket line is strongly recommended.
Featured Cases
Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers
2026 ONCA 515 (CanLII) · 2026-07-14Labour Dispute Injunction: CUPW v. Purolator Appeal
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision granting an injunction against picketing. The employer, Purolator, obtained a court order without notice to stop the Canadian Union of Postal Workers from picketing outside its facilities during a strike against Canada Post. The motion judge decided that the strict notice rules for labour disputes did not apply because Purolator was not directly involved in the union's dispute with Canada Post. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction. The Court ruled that the picketing was connected to a labour dispute because Canada Post owns most of Purolator, meaning the employer was legally required to give notice before getting the injunction.
Titan Tool & Die Limited v. Unifor and its Local 195, et al
2025 ONSC 5580 (CanLII) · 2025-10-01Labour Dispute: Injunction Against Picketing
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a labour dispute where the employer sought to vary an existing injunction to restrain picketing at additional locations. The court addressed the admissibility of hearsay evidence in support of the injunction motion and balanced the union's constitutional freedom of expression against the employer's property rights.
Titan Tool & Die Limited v. Unifor and its Local 195, et al.
2025 ONSC 3634 (CanLII) · 2025-06-18Labour Dispute: Costs for Injunction Against Blockade
This is a procedural costs ruling in a labour dispute where the employer sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain a union blockade. The court determined that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis rather than substantial indemnity, finding that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted for a short-lived political protest.
Windsor Salt Ltd./Sel Windsor Ltée.
2023 ONSC 1431 (CanLII) · 2023-03-06Labour Dispute: Injunction Against Unlawful Picketing
This is an interlocutory proceeding where an employer sought an interim injunction to restrain unlawful picketing activity during a legal strike. The court addressed whether it had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief under the Courts of Justice Act, whether the affidavit evidence satisfied statutory requirements, and how to balance the employer's rights with the picketers' freedom of expression under the Charter.
Bank-Strox Renovation Inc. v. Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 183
2020 ONSC 4911 (CanLII) · 2020-08-18Labour Injunction: Picketing vs. Business Rights
An interlocutory motion where an employer sought an injunction to prevent unlawful picketing activities, including trespass and intimidation, by unionized employees engaged in strike action. The court addressed threshold requirements under s. 102 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the necessity of police assistance and the admissibility of affidavit evidence, while balancing the union's freedom of expression against the employer's right to conduct business.
AirTime Express Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 419
2017 ONSC 5401 (CanLII) · 2017-09-12Labour Dispute: Injunction Against Picketing
This is an interlocutory proceeding involving a labour dispute where a third party sought an injunction against picketing activities by a union. The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and the framework from Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. v. R.W.D.S.U., Local 558 to determine whether the third party met the evidentiary burden for an injunction and how to balance freedom of expression with harm to business operations.
V. v Cineplex Odeon
2016 ONSC 7929 (CanLII) · 2016-12-16Interlocutory Injunction: Picketing and Free Speech
This is an interlocutory proceeding where the defendant sought an injunction to prohibit picketing and defamatory statements by the plaintiff. The court addressed whether the absence of a permanent injunction claim precluded interlocutory relief and whether the evidentiary record satisfied the RJR-MacDonald test for granting such relief.
Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc. v. Unifor et al
2014 ONSC 4635 (CanLII) · 2014-08-08Labour Dispute: Injunction Against Picketing
This is an interlocutory proceeding in which the employer sought an injunction to restrain picketing activities by the union at its manufacturing facility, alleging disruptions and tortious conduct. The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions and balanced the union's freedom of expression under the Charter against the employer's interests and public safety, considering whether police enforcement was sufficient.
Sobeys v. UFCW, Local 175
2013 ONSC 1207 (CanLII) · 2013-02-26Labour Law: Injunction Against Picketing During Strike
This is an interlocutory proceeding where an employer sought an injunction to restrain picketing activities by a union during a lawful strike. The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, balancing the employer's right to access property against the union's constitutional right to peaceful picketing, ultimately granting the injunction with terms allowing limited delays.
Ideal Railings Ltd. v. Laborers’ International Union of North America
2013 ONSC 701 (CanLII) · 2013-01-30Union Picketing Injunction: Balancing Rights
This is an interlocutory proceeding where the employer sought an injunction to stop union members from blocking ingress and egress to the business premises and intimidating workers during a labour dispute. The court addressed the legal framework for balancing the union's freedom of expression and right to picket against the employer's property rights and the test for granting interlocutory injunctions in labour disputes.
Ideal Railings Ltd v Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 183
2013 CanLII 3049 (ON SC) · 2013-01-30An interlocutory proceeding involving an application for an interim and interlocutory injunction against a union regarding picketing activities.
Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. G. et al
2013 ONSC 256 (CanLII) · 2013-01-11This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a labour dispute where the employer sought a permanent injunction against truck drivers picketing an intermodal terminal following pay reductions. The court addressed whether the picketing constituted constitutionally protected expression under the Charter and whether the employer demonstrated irreparable harm to justify the injunction, considering allegations of vandalism and secondary picketing.
Glasrock Products Inc. v. United Steelworkers, Local 1005
2011 ONSC 5021 (CanLII) · 2011-08-24Labour Dispute: Injunction Sought Against Union Picketing
An interlocutory injunction application brought by an employer against a union to prevent picketing activities that escalated into blockading access to U.S. Steel's property. The court addressed whether the blockading exceeded lawful picketing protected by the Charter, whether statutory preconditions for an injunction were met, and whether the use of replacement workers justified the defendants' actions.
Alumicor Limited. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing
2011 ONSC 1707 (CanLII) · 2011-03-17Labour Dispute: Injunction Against Picketing
This is an interlocutory proceeding in a labour dispute where the employer sought an injunction to prevent picketers from obstructing access to its facilities. The court analyzed whether the picketers' actions, including blockades and safety hazards, were lawful and balanced the picketers' Charter rights against the employer's property rights using the RJR MacDonald test.
ECP, Engineered Coated Products v. United Steel et al
2010 ONSC 7197 (CanLII) · 2011-01-06This is a procedural ruling concerning labour law, specifically addressing issues of picketing and the granting of injunctions in the context of a dispute involving a union and an employer.
Brookfield Properties v. H. et al.
2010 ONSC 6187 (CanLII) · 2010-11-10Picketing Injunction: Balancing Union Rights and Property Access
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a labour dispute where the plaintiff sought an interim injunction to limit picketing activities that obstructed vehicular access to a commercial complex. The court addressed whether the picketing exceeded lawful limits, constituted a nuisance, and how to balance the union's freedom of expression against the plaintiff's property rights and public safety concerns.
Vale v. USWA Local 6500 et al
2010 ONSC 1774 (CanLII) · 2010-03-24Union Picketing Injunction: Property vs. Expression
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a labour dispute where the employer sought an injunction to restrict union picketing activities during a lawful strike due to allegations of violence and property damage. The court addressed the admissibility of affidavit evidence under the Courts of Justice Act, the balancing of the employer's property rights against the union's freedom of expression under the Charter, and the mechanisms for enforcing injunctions.
Fleming Door Products Ltd. v. H.
2008 CanLII 38961 (ON SC) · 2008-08-01Labour Injunction: Picketing Obstruction Case
This is an interlocutory proceeding where the plaintiff sought an interim and interlocutory injunction to prevent unlawful picketing that obstructed transport trucks and non-unionized workers. The court addressed whether the obstruction constituted unlawful conduct causing irreparable harm and determined the applicability of specific statutory sections for granting the injunction.
Long Lake Forest Products Inc v. United Steelworkders Local 1-2693
2006 CanLII 34442 (ON SC) · 2006-10-02Labour Dispute: Picketing Injunction & Charter Rights
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a labour dispute where the employer sought an injunction to restrain the union from obstructing logging roads during a picket. The court balanced the union's constitutional right to freedom of expression against the employer's economic interests and assessed whether the picketing conduct exceeded lawful limits or involved tortious behaviour.
IKO Industries Ltd., Re
2006 CanLII 12314 (ON SC) · 2006-04-20Contempt of Court in Labour Dispute: Picketing Breaches
This is a procedural ruling on a contempt of court motion arising from a labour dispute where union members allegedly breached a court order during picketing. The court addressed the admissibility of hearsay evidence under Rule 60.11(3) and determined that proven breaches included verbal threats, physical assault, and property damage, while reserving the decision on penalties.