The British Columbia Court of Appeal has determined that TELUS Communications Inc. can proceed with its appeal against an injunction without seeking leave — a ruling that was moot because the injunction had expired, but still important as TELUS pushed for a ruling to provide clarification.
Justice Horsman ruled that TELUS does not require leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction that had prevented the company from implementing work changes affecting customer experience agents pending arbitration under the Canada Labour Code.
Closing Ontario call centre, consolidating operations in Montreal
The dispute arose after TELUS announced two initiatives on July 9, 2024, impacting unionized employees represented by the Telecommunications Workers Union, United Steelworkers Local Union 1944 (the Union). The initiatives involved closing a call centre in Barrie, Ontario, consolidating operations in Montreal, and modifying the work-from-home program to require affected employees to work in the office more frequently.
Affected employees were given until August 9, 2024, to choose between relocating, accepting a severance package, or adjusting to new in-office work requirements starting in September and October. The Union filed grievances on July 29, 2024, alleging violations of the collective agreement, and sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of British Columbia to halt the initiatives until an arbitrator could decide on the matter.
Injunction granted
The Supreme Court granted the injunction, citing an “exceptional situation” where the timelines imposed by TELUS did not allow the arbitral process to provide an adequate remedy. The court exercised its “residual discretionary power to grant interlocutory relief,” drawing on its inherent jurisdiction as recognized in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Canadian Pacific System Federation v. Canadian Pacific Ltd.
TELUS applied for leave to appeal the injunction, arguing that leave was not required because the injunction was issued under the court’s inherent jurisdiction rather than Rule 10-4 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. The Union contended that leave was necessary, asserting that the injunction fell under Rule 10-4, making it a limited appeal order.
Appeal court sides with TELUS
Madam Justice Horsman agreed with TELUS, stating, “I find that the injunction was not made pursuant to Rule 10-4, and therefore it is not a limited appeal order. TELUS does not require leave to appeal.”
The court examined whether the injunction “came through” the Supreme Court Civil Rules or solely from the court’s inherent jurisdiction. Citing previous decisions, including Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Mashari, Justice Horsman noted that while procedural rules coexist with the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the specific circumstances of this case did not align with Rule 10-4, which governs pre-trial injunctions pending final hearings in the Supreme Court.
“In no sense can an injunction issued pursuant to this jurisdiction be viewed as a ‘pre-trial injunction’ under Rule 10-4,” she wrote. “The issuance of the injunction did not reflect an interlocutory step in the proceeding in the BC Supreme Court, but rather its conclusion.”
The ruling clarifies that when an injunction is granted under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, it is not considered a limited appeal order, and therefore, leave to appeal is not required.
Injunction moot, but TELUS sought clarification
By the time the leave application was heard, the injunction had expired, an arbitrator had been appointed on August 12, 2024, and the Union’s grievances were dismissed on October 15, 2024. Despite the mootness of the injunction, TELUS argued that the appeal should proceed due to its significance in clarifying legal principles related to labour disputes and the court’s jurisdiction.
Justice Horsman addressed this concern, stating that had leave been required, she would have granted it. “The question of whether, and to what extent, a remedial gap remains in the Code that justifies court intervention in a collective bargaining process is a matter of significance to the labour law practice,” she noted. “TELUS’ grounds of appeal are arguable.”
The court recognized that while the appeal is technically moot, it raises important questions about the interplay between the Canada Labour Code and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. “There is a realistic prospect that a division of this Court would decline to exercise its discretion to hear this appeal,” Justice Horsman acknowledged. “However, I cannot say that TELUS’ appeal is bound to fail on that basis.”
The Union had argued that the appeal would be of no practical utility since the injunction had expired and the grievances were dismissed. However, the court found that the issues at stake could recur and are of broader importance to employers, unions, and legal practitioners.
For more information, see TELUS Communications Inc. v. Telecommunications Workers Union, 2024 BCCA 403 (CanLII).
