Background:

• The plaintiffs claimed that a lawful strike by the union, which involved picketing, caused significant financial losses. Specifically, they alleged that the picket line delayed concrete delivery, resulting in the concrete hardening and becoming unusable. Additionally, they claimed unlawful picketing activity that required police intervention.

Motions for Summary Judgment:

• Plaintiffs’ Position: The plaintiffs argued that the Ontario Superior Court, not the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), was the appropriate forum for addressing these issues. They cited legislative history and argued that the involvement of police and the alleged property interference moved the case beyond the jurisdiction of the collective agreement.
• Defendants’ Position: The defendants argued that the OLRB had jurisdiction over the matter, citing that the picketing was lawful under the collective agreement. They contended that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was strategic, given its timing near the end of the collective agreement, and emphasized that the collective agreement, retroactively applicable, required arbitration.

Court’s Decision:

• Jurisdiction: The court concluded that the OLRB is the appropriate forum, rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the legislative history and the police involvement.
• Outcome: The defendants’ motion was granted, and the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants. No amount was specified.