Superior Court stays employer lawsuit against union organizers following certification campaign
In Remcan Projects LP v. Wallace et al., 2026 ONSC 3571, the Ontario Superior Court confirmed that disputes arising from alleged misconduct during a union organizing campaign generally belong before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”), not the courts.
The case arose during a certification drive by the Labourers’ International Union of North America (“LIUNA”). Remcan alleged that union organizers improperly obtained confidential company information through a supervisor, used that information to locate employees, pressured workers to sign union membership cards, and committed various economic torts, including conspiracy and inducing breach of contract. Remcan sued the union organizers (but not LIUNA itself) in the Ontario Superior Court, seeking more than $1 million in damages and injunctive relief.
The defendants moved to have the action dismissed, arguing that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the OLRB because the allegations related directly to an ongoing union organizing campaign and certification proceedings already before the Board.
Justice Papageorgiou granted the motion and stayed the action. The “essential character” of the dispute was a labour relations matter governed by Ontario’s Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“LRA”). This was true even though Remcan had sued the union organizers rather than the union itself. While Remcan framed its allegations as civil tort claims against individuals, the Court found that the conduct complained of arose directly from the union’s organizing efforts and certification applications.
The Court emphasized that the OLRB has broad authority to investigate and remedy alleged misconduct during organizing campaigns, including intimidation, coercion, misuse of information, and other unfair labour practices. The Board can also grant interim relief, dismiss certification applications, order representation votes, and award other remedies where appropriate.
The Court also held that Remcan could not seek damages for the fact that employees signed membership cards, the impacts of the organizing campaign on its business, or the alleged disclosure of confidential information, as no employer has the right to be free from union certification and this information would have to be disclosed through the OLRB’s processes in any event.
The Court further held that the civil action was an abuse of process because it was essentially a tactical attempt to fight the organizing campaign on multiple fronts. Many of the same factual allegations were already before the OLRB in the certification proceedings. Allowing the Superior Court action to proceed in parallel would create a risk of inconsistent findings, duplicate litigation, and undermine the Board’s role as the specialized tribunal responsible for labour relations disputes.
In reaching these conclusions, the Court noted that Remcan had not fully pursued potential remedies before the OLRB. It had not filed a separate complaint against the organizers under the LRA, sought to add them as parties to the Board proceedings, or requested particulars and production through the Board’s processes.
The Court rejected the argument that the action was barred by Ontario’s Rights of Labour Act. It also declined to strike the claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, observing that allegations such as breach of confidence and bribery could, in principle, support civil claims. However, the existence of potentially viable causes of action did not alter the jurisdictional analysis.
The defendant organizers were represented by Christine Davies and Erin Sobat.