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
Glasrock Products Inc. v. United Steelworkers, Local 1005
2011 ONSC 5021 (CanLII) · 2011-08-24Labour Dispute: Injunction Granted Against Union Picketing
A court case involving a labour dispute where a company sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent union picketing that escalated to blocking access to the property. The court granted the injunction, finding that the picketing activities exceeded lawful limits and posed environmental and public safety risks. The use of replacement workers by the company was deemed legal.
Vale v. USWA Local 6500 et al
2010 ONSC 1774 (CanLII) · 2010-03-24Labour Dispute: Union Picketing and Employer Property Rights
A labour dispute involving union picketing during a lawful strike, with the employer seeking to restrict picketing activities due to allegations of violence, intimidation, and property damage. The court considered whether the union’s conduct warranted further intervention and balanced the employer’s property rights with the union’s freedom of expression under the Charter.
Ivaco Rolling Mills (2004) LP v. United Steel Workers of America, Local 8794
2005 CanLII 45199 (ON SC) · 2005-12-06Labour Dispute: Injunction Granted to Regulate Picketing During Strike
A merits decision involving a plaintiff steel mill seeking an interlocutory injunction to regulate picketing activities during a legal strike. The court granted the injunction to prevent escalation of harm while respecting lawful picketing rights, and found that the risk of violence and personal injury constituted irreparable harm.
Cancoil Thermal Corp. v. Abbott
2004 CanLII 2565 (ON SC) · 2004-05-10Labour Dispute: Injunction Denied Over Picketing During Strike
A merits decision involving a dispute between an employer and a union over picketing activities during a lawful strike. The employer sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the picketing, but the court denied the injunction, emphasizing the constitutional protection of picketing as a form of expression and finding no tortious or criminal conduct.
Canada Post Corp. v. C.U.P.W.
1991 CanLII 8320 (ON SC) · 1991-09-16Labour Dispute: Picketing and Interference with Employer Operations
A labour dispute involving union members and sympathizers picketing Canada Post facilities, raising questions about the legality of obstructing access to employer premises and whether such actions are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ruled that picketing intended to shut down operations is unlawful and that the Charter does not apply to freely negotiated collective agreements.
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.
Bulk-Lift Systems Ltd. v. Warehousemen and Miscellaneous Drivers' Union Local 419 et al.
1975 CanLII 366 (ON SC) · 1975-10-13Labour Dispute: Injunction Limits Picketing During Strike
A labor dispute involving striking employees who engaged in vandalism, threats, and assaults during a lawful strike. The employer sought an injunction to limit or prohibit picketing, and the court issued an injunction to prohibit picketing at customer premises and refuse disposal sites, while limiting picketing at the employer’s premises to ensure safety.
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.
Tatham Co. Ltd. v. Blackburn et al.
1975 CanLII 743 (ON SC) · 1975-06-12Labour Dispute: Injunction Dissolved for Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements
A merits decision involving a labour dispute where employees of a county engaged in a lawful strike and conducted peaceful picketing at a construction site. The court examined whether an injunction restraining picketing was granted in connection with a labour dispute under section 20 of the Judicature Act, and ultimately dissolved the injunction due to non-compliance with statutory procedural requirements.
Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Hubert et al.
1974 CanLII 532 (ON SC) · 1974-05-17Illegal Strike Injunction: Labour Relations Act Enforcement
A labour and employment case involving an illegal strike and the enforcement of an injunction to prohibit picketing. The court ruled that all picketing, including peaceful picketing, may be enjoined if it causes substantial or irreparable harm to the employer, under the Labour Relations Act.
Inglis Ltd. v. Rao et al.
1974 CanLII 579 (ON SC) · 1974-02-14Labour Dispute: Picketing at Employer's Plant and Injunction Restrictions
A labour dispute case involving picketing at one of an employer's plants by a union striking at another plant. The court addressed whether such picketing constitutes secondary picketing and whether an injunction to restrain picketing can be granted ex parte under the Judicature Act.
Domtar Chemicals Ltd. v. Leddy et al.
1973 CanLII 508 (ON SC) · 1973-07-06Labour Dispute: Picketing at Salt Plant and Ex Parte Injunction Dismissed
A labour dispute involving striking Salt Mine workers picketing the Salt Plant owned by the same employer. The court determined that the picketing was not secondary and dismissed an application for an ex parte injunction due to lack of notice under the Judicature Act.
Nadrofsky Steel Erecting Ltd. v. Doyle et al.
1973 CanLII 386 (ON SC) · 1973-05-18Labour and Employment: Picketing and Injunction Denial in Construction Dispute
A case involving peaceful picketing by union representatives at a construction site and whether it constituted secondary picketing or communication of information. The court denied an interlocutory injunction sought by a subcontractor to restrain the picketing, finding the circumstances did not meet the strict requirements for granting such relief.
Refrigeration Supplies Co. Ltd. v. Ellis et al.
1970 CanLII 292 (ON SC) · 1970-05-11Labour Dispute: Primary Picketing at Subsidiary Premises
A labor and employment case involving the legality of union picketing at the premises of a subsidiary company where the striking subsidiary's business activities are conducted. The court held that the picketing constituted primary picketing and was lawful, applying principles from Williams v. Aristocratic Restaurants and other relevant cases. An application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the picketing was denied.
Hanes of Canada Ltd. v. McConnell et al.
1969 CanLII 320 (ON SC) · 1969-06-16Labour Dispute: Injunction on Picketing and Union Trailer Proximity
A labour and employment case involving an employer seeking an injunction to limit picketing activities and the presence of a union trailer near the main entrance of its premises. The court considered whether the number of pickets and the presence of the trailer could create an atmosphere of intimidation and whether such restrictions are justified.
Canadian H.W. Gossard Co. Ltd. v. Tripp et al.
1967 CanLII 213 (ON SC) · 1967-11-14Labour Dispute: Injunction Granted to Restrain Unlawful Picketing
A merits decision involving a labour dispute where an employer sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain unlawful picketing during a legal strike. The court granted the injunction against certain defendants based on substantiated evidence of improper conduct and addressed the proper function of interlocutory injunctions in labour disputes.
SCM (Canada) Ltd. v. Motley et al.
1967 CanLII 274 (ON SC) · 1967-06-22Labour Dispute: Court Dismisses Injunction Motion Over Picketing During Strike
A merits decision involving a dispute over the lawful picketing during a strike, where the employer sought an interim injunction to limit the number of pickets. The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of obstruction, violence, or intimidation, and emphasized that interim injunctions require uncontradicted evidence.
Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. v. McGloin et al.
1963 CanLII 111 (ON SC) · 1963-11-30Wildcat Strike Injunction: Employer Granted Relief Against Picketing
A labour dispute involving wildcat strikes and picketing, where the employer sought and was granted a quia timet injunction to prevent further picketing by wildcat strikers, despite the cessation of picketing and an undertaking to refrain from further action. The court considered whether the cessation of picketing bars an injunction and determined it does not if the employer can demonstrate ongoing risk of harm.
Edland Construction (1960) Ltd. v. Childs and Sallafranque
1963 CanLII 615 (ON SC) · 1963-06-07Picketing by Non-Employees: Unlawful Interference and Labour Dispute Analysis
A case involving picketing by non-employees at a construction site, examining whether such actions constitute unlawful interference with private rights, breach peace, or violate statutory procedures under the Labour Relations Act. The court considers whether the picketing arises from a legitimate labour dispute and whether it involves intimidation, coercion, or tortious interference.
Nipissing Hotel Ltd. et al. v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union et al
1963 CanLII 149 (ON SC) · 1963-04-08Labour Relations: Trade Union Status and Picketing Breach
A labour relations case involving a trade union certified under the Labour Relations Act and its status as a juridical entity, as well as whether picketing during off-shift hours constitutes a breach of the Labour Relations Act or actionable nuisance. The court also addressed whether employees breached their employment contracts by engaging in such picketing.