Q.B. A.D. 1994 No. 2593 J.C.S. IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON BETWEEN: THE CITY OF SASKATOON and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 319, STEVE SAUNDERS and PAT HYDE, personally and as representatives of all the members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 319, and on behalf of all other members of the said Union Amalgamated Transit Union, Local No. 615, Dan Bichel and Peter Perera, personally and as representatives of all the members of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local No. 615, and on behalf of all other members of the said Union Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 59, Dave Taylor and Lois Lamon, personally and as representatives of all the members of Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 59, and on behalf of all other members of the said Union Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 859, Paul Michie and Sterling Sklapsky, personally and as representatives of all the members of Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 859, and on behalf of all other members of the said Union Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 47, Les Mills and Ken Johnston, personally and as representatives of all the members of Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 47, and on behalf of all other members of the said Union DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS B.H. Rossmann and L. Bellegarde for the applicant plaintiff N.R. McLeod for all the respondent defendants JUDGMENT GROTSKY J. August 25, 1994 At the conclusion of the hearing of thisapplication on August 23, 1994, I granted the applicant'sapplication for an interim injunction until trial, or untilfurther order, on certain terms and conditions and indicatedthat reasons for my decision would follow. These are those reasons. NATURE OF PRESENT APPLICATION The applicant plaintiff seeks orders as follows:An interim Order directed against theDefendants and each of them and any personacting under their instruction or behest orany other person having knowledge of thisOrder and any member of the said Unions on thefollowing terms:(a) restraining such persons from picketingexcept in an orderly manner with an intervalof at least 25 feet between persons picketing,which persons must remain in motion (this"interval" request was abandoned during thehearing of this application); (b) restraining such persons from obstructing or blocking the places of entrance to and egress from the Plaintiff's various premises; (c) restraining such persons from obstructing or blocking places of entrance to or egress from various sites or places of operation of the Plaintiff away from the Plaintiff's various primary premises; (d) restraining such persons from performing acts of intimidation with respect to the Plaintiff's employees and/or other persons seeking to do business with the Plaintiff or receive various services from the Plaintiff; (e) restraining such persons from trespassing on the Plaintiff's various property or places of operation or work sites; and (f) restraining such persons from watching and besetting the Plaintiff's various property or places of operation or work sites. THE GROUNDS The grounds upon which this application is founded, as stated and set forth in the applicant's notice of motion are: the Defendants and each of them and various persons acting under their instruction or behest and members of the Defendant Unions have been engaging in unlawful mass picketing at various of the Plaintiff's premises, places of operation and work sites, and, inter alia, have been creating nuisance, unlawfully watching and besetting the Plaintiff's various premises, places of operation and work sites, and have been intimidating and coercing other employees of the Plaintiff and others, all for the purpose of interfering with and preventing the Plaintiff from carrying out its operations and supplying the public with essential services and prevents the Plaintiff from enjoyment of its various premises, places of operation and work sites. THE MATERIALS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION INCLUDE 1. The Statement of Claim issued on August 17, 2. The application to abridge the time for the service and return of the Notice of Motion presently before me on this application and all of the materials filed in support of the said ex parte application; 3. The required Undertaking given by the applicant plaintiff with respect to damages; 4. The Order granted by me on August 18, 1994 with the requisite proofs of service thereof; 5. The subject Notice of Motion with the requisite proofs of service thereof; 6. The affidavits of Richard Ferguson, Gaston Joseph Gourdeau, Rod Neufeld, Kathie Jeffrey, Stewart Uzelman, Kim Anderson, D. Lynn Shyluk, James H. Dasiuk, Richard Josef Prankev, Gregory Dale Balderston, Michael Gordon Mikytyshyn, Randy Munch, Garth Rygh, Shelley Chirpilo and Glen David Hilton (with proofs of service thereof) each of whom (with the exception of said Kim Anderson) is presently in the employ of the applicant and respectively hold the following positions with the applicant: FERGUSON: Maintenance Manager at the Saskatoon Transit Department; GOURDEAU: General Foreman Street and Sidewalk Maintenance; NEUFELD: Electrical Engineer at the applicant's Electrical Distribution Department; JEFFREY: Personnel Officer in the applicant's Personnel Services Department; UZELMAN: The Applicant's City Engineer ANDERSON: private investigator employed by private investigating firm which was specifically retained by the applicant to monitor the strike activity of the applicant's striking employees; SHYLUK: Communications Officer; DASIUK: Operations and Construction Manager of the applicant's Electrical Distribution Department; PRANKEV: The applicant's Solid Waste Management Engineer and as such responsible for supervising the collection, disposal, and management of garbage for the applicant; BALDERSTON: personnel Officer in the applicant's Personnel Services Department, Employment and Compensation Branch; MIKYTYSHYN: Manager of the applicant's Electrical Distribution Department; MUNCH: Manager of the applicant's Water and Pollution Control Department; RYGH: Superintendent at the applicant's Water Treatment Plant; CHIRPILO: Director of Personnel Services; HILTON: Manager of Labour Relations. THE MATERIALS FILED IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION INCLUDES: None of the respondents have filed any materials in response to this application. None of the respondents has put in issue any of the allegations deposed to by said Richard Ferguson, Gaston Joseph Gourdeau, Rod Neufeld, Kathie Jeffrey, Stewart Uzelman, Kim Anderson, D. Lynn Shyluk, James H. Dasiuk, Richard Josef Prankev, Gregory Dale Balderston, Michael Gordon Mikytyshyn, Randy Munch, Garth Rygh, Shelley Chirpilo and Glen David Hilton. THE LAW There are plethora of authorities including Saskatchewan Construction Labour Relations Council Inc. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1021 (1983), 1982 CanLII 2434 (SK QB), 21 Sask. R. 36 (Sask. Q.B.); Waddell et al v. Neill et al (1983), 1983 CanLII 2258 (SK QB), 26 Sask. R. 14 (Sask. Q.B.); Westfair Foods Ltd. v. Stewart et al (1983), 1982 CanLII 2715 (SK QB), 22 Sask. R. 203 (Sask. Q.B.); Standard Water Treatment (1981) Ltd. v. Standard Holdings Ltd. et al (1983), 1983 CanLII 2612 (SK QB), 24 Sask. R. 234 (Sask. Q.B.); Lightfoot v. Gerecke et al (1984), 1983 CanLII 2358 (SK QB), 27 Sask. R. 305 (Sask. Q.B.) and Neufeld et al v. UFCW (1984), 1984 CanLII 2630 (SK QB), 32 Sask. R. 241 (Sask. Q.B.) which hold that, in this jurisdiction, before an applicant is entitled to obtain an interlocutory injunction he must first establish certain basic criteria. Shortly stated, these criteria are: 1. An interlocutory injunction will only be granted where the right to relief is clear; 2. The plaintiff in asserting right to an interlocutory injunction must show strong prima facie case in support of the right which he asserts and strong possibility that he will succeed at trial; 3. The plaintiff must be able to show that an injunction until the hearing is necessary to protect him against irreparable damage and loss, mere inconvenience is not enough; 4. Where any doubt exists as to the plaintiff's right, or his right is not disputed, but if violation is denied, the court should determine on the balance of convenience to the parties the nature of the injury which the defendant on the one hand would suffer if the injunction is granted and he should turn out to be right and that the plaintiff on the other hand might sustain if the injunction is refused and he should ultimately turn out to be right. It is trite law that the burden of proof that the inconvenience which the plaintiff will suffer by the refusal of the injunction is greater than that which the defendant will suffer lies on the plaintiff. Vide: Halsbury's Laws of England (3d), Vol. 21, p. 264 and Saskatchewan Construction Labour Relations Council Inc. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, supra, at p. 49. It is also trite law that on an application for an interlocutory injunction it is not necessary for the plaintiff to make out case which will entitle it in all events to relief at trial. Vide: Kerr on Injunctions (6th Ed.) p. where the learned author indicates: The interlocutory injunction is merely provisional in its nature, and does not conclude right. The effect and object of the interlocutory injunction is merely to keep matters in statu quo until the hearing or further order. In interfering by interlocutory injunction, the court does not in general profess to anticipate the determination of the right, but merely gives it as its opinion that there is substantial question to be tried, and that till the question is ripe for trial, case has been made out for the preservation of the property in the meantime in statu quo. The above observations from Kerr on Injunctions were referred to with approval by Culliton C.J.S. in Wishart v. Knox et al (1967), 1967 CanLII 461 (SK CA), 65 D.L.R. (2d) 216 (Sask. C.A.) at p. 217 and by Cameron J. (as he then was) in Provincial Distributing Co. Ltd. v. Carey Ad Specialties Ltd. et al (1981), 11 Sask. R. 112 (Sask. Q.B.) at p. 115. On the whole of the evidence am satisfied that: 1. The applicant, through its municipal electrical utility, supplies essential electrical services to approximately 70% of its present geographical area and to its residential, commercial, industrial and institutional citizens and customers residing and/or carrying on business within said geographical area including, inter alia, hospitals, nursing homes, fire halls, the Saskatoon City Police Service Station, the Saskatoon Detachment of The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Saskatoon Water Treatment Plant, Ambulance Stations and the Regional Psychiatric Centre; 2. The applicant, through its said electrical utility, services all of the traffic signals within its noted geographical area; 3. The applicant, through its Solid Waste Management Branch, picks up the majority of the residential garbage, and, as well, some commercial and institutional garbage within its corporate limits. 4. The applicant, through its Water Treatment Plant, provides potable water to all residences and businesses within its corporate limits, and, as well, to number of smaller municipalities surrounding the City of Saskatoon including Allan, Clavet, Elstow, Bradwell, Dalmeny, Martensville and Osler all in the Province of Saskatchewan. As well, number of small commercial and rural residential developments located outside of the applicant's geographical area depend upon the applicant for their potable water; 5. The applicant, in addition to supplying potable water to those municipalities and developments specifically identified in para. hereof immediately preceding, provides all water for all fire‑fighting services for both the City of Saskatoon Fire Department as well as for the fire‑fighting departments of the said above noted surrounding smaller communities; 6. The applicant has established that the defendants and various persons acting upon and/or under their instructions or behest and that members of the defendant Unions have been engaged in unlawful mass picketing at various of the applicant's premises, places of operation and work sites, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing at the applicant's work site situated on 21st Street East between 4th Avenue and Spadina Crescent in the City of Saskatoon; at the applicant's Northern Landfill; at the applicant's Electrical Distribution Department yard at 322 Brand Road in said City of Saskatoon; at the applicant's work site of the proposed St. Joseph's High School in the Erindale district of said City of Saskatoon; at the intersection of Clarence Avenue and Brand Road in the vicinity of said Electrical Distribution Department Yard; at the applicant's Solid Waste Management Branch yard main gate and area on Ontario Avenue in said City of Saskatoon; and, inter alia, said defendant Unions, and various of its members, including, at times, some of the specifically named defendants, have been creating nuisance and have been unlawfully watching and besetting the applicant's said and various other of the applicant's premises, places of operation and work sites, and have been intimidating and coercing other employees of the applicant and others, including employees of suppliers to the applicant of essential materials for its Water and Pollution Control Plant, all for, inter alia, the purpose of interfering with and preventing the applicant from carrying out its statutory and contractual obligations and operations and thereby, inter alia, preventing the applicant from supplying its noted citizens and other customers with essential services, and, as well, for the purpose of preventing the applicant from enjoying its various premises, places of operation and work sites; 7. The applicant has established that the defendants and various persons acting upon and/or under their instructions or behest have, and continue, to engage in conduct which creates danger to the health and safety of those persons to whom the applicant has either statutory and/or contractual duty and responsibility to provide the above‑noted essential services. CONCLUSION On the whole of the evidence I am satisfied thatthe applicant has raised a substantial question to be tried;it has established a prima facie case of the violation by thedefendants of a right or rights that the applicant might have. The applicant has shown more than the mere prospect orapprehension of injury; it has shown that the defendants indoing that which the applicant alleges is in violation of itsrights and that the applicant is suffering in consequencethereof and that such suffering cannot be adequatelycompensated for by the award of damages in money. Further,that the balance of convenience in the matter favours theapplicant. There will, therefore, be an order granting tothe applicant an interim injunction until trial, or untilfurther order, the terms of which are as follows: TERMS OF INTERIM INJUNCTION The Defendants and each of them and any person acting under their instruction or behest and any member of the said Unions, or any other person having knowledge of this Order be and are, until the trial of this action, or until further order, hereby: (a) restrained from picketing except in an orderly manner at the various premises of the Plaintiff and particularly and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, at the Electrical Distribution Department, the Water and Pollution Control Department, the Engineering Department and the Transit Department owned and operated by the Plaintiff; (b) permitted to picket in an orderly manner, provided that such picketers must at all times remain in motion; (c) restrained from obstructing or blocking all places of entrance to or egress from each of the Plaintiff's noted Departments and related premises; (d) restrained from obstructing or blocking places of entrance to or egress from various work sites or places of operation of the Plaintiff away from the Plaintiff's various primary premises; (e) restrained from intimidating in any way the Plaintiff's employees and/or other persons seeking to do business with the Plaintiff and/or persons who receive various services performed by the Plaintiff; (f) restrained from trespassing on the Plaintiff's various premises or places of operation or work sites and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, are restrained from trespassing on the property occupied by the Plaintiff's noted Departments; and (g) restrained from watching and besetting the Plaintiff's various premises or places of operation or work sites and specifically, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Plaintiff's noted Departments. COSTS The costs of and incidental to this application will, as agreed upon by counsel, be costs in the cause.
The City applied for an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant Unions from engaging in unlawful picketing. The City alleged that the members of the Defendant Unions obstructed and/or blocked entrances to and/or exits from various premises of the plaintiff including, inter alia, its Electrical Distribution Department, its Water and Pollution Control Department and its Water Treatment Plant thereby interfering with the plaintiff's statutory and contractual obligations to provide essential services to its citizens and others, and, as well, created a danger to the health and safety of its said citizens and others. The Defendant Unions did not file any materials. HELD: Application allowed. On the whole of the evidence the court was satisfied that the applicant had raised a substantial question to be tried, had established a prima facie case, was in danger of suffering injury which could not adequately be compensated for by the award of damages in money, and that the balance of convenience in the matter favoured the applicant.