Date: 19990723
Docket: T-1326-99
BETWEEN:
CORNER BROOK PULP AND PAPER LTD.
Plaintiff
- and -
COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND PAPERWORKERS UNION
| OF CANADA, LOCAL 60N |
Defendant
- and -
RON LANGDON, WAYNE BUDGEL,
RON SMITH, BRUCE LIDSTONE,
LINDY VINCENT AND RAY GEORGE
Defendants
UPON motion on behalf of the plaintiff Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd. for an ex parte interim injunction enjoining and restraining the defendants Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 60N ("CEP, Local 60N") and Ron Langdon, its president, from
| (a) watching, besetting or picketing by water in the port of Corner Brook in the Province of Newfoundland or interfering with the safe and orderly course of navigation by any vessels in the said port or the approaches thereto, whether in a manner contrary to section 5 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.N-22, to section 46 of the Small Vessel Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c.1487, contrary to Rules 7, 8 and 9 of the Collision Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c.1416, or otherwise contrary to Canadian maritime law; and from declaring, authorising, counselling, aiding, engaging or conspiring with others, whether directly or indirectly, to bring about or continue such acts or omissions with respect to the plaintiff"s employees or with respect to its agents or contractors or the masters, officers and crews of any vessels proceeding to or from the said port for the purpose of loading or discharging cargo at, or bound for, the plaintiff"s property known as the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill; |
| (b) watching, besetting or picketing by water elsewhere in waters under Canadian jurisdiction or interfering with the safe and orderly course of navigation by any vessels in such waters which are proceeding to or from the plaintiff"s property known as the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill, whether in a manner contrary to section 5 of the Navigable Water Protection Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.N-22; contrary to section 46 of the Small Vessel Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c.1487 contrary to the Collision Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c.1416, or otherwise contrary to Canadian maritime law and from declaring, authorising, counselling, aiding, engaging or conspiring with others, whether directly or indirectly, to bring about or continue such acts or omissions with respect to the plaintiff"s employees or with respect to its agents or contractors or the masters, officers and crews of any vessels referred to herein; |
| (c) watching, besetting or picketing by water within that area of the port of Corner Brook lying within 200 feet from the water side of the wharf at the plaintiff"s property known as the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill or interfering with the safe and orderly course of navigation by any vessels within such part of the port of Corner Brooke, whether in a manner contrary to section 5 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.N-22, contrary to section 46 of the Small Vessel Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c.1487, contrary to Rules 7, 8 and 9 of the Collision Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c.1416, or otherwise contrary to Canadian maritime law; and from declaring, authorising, counselling, aiding, engaging or conspiring with others, whether directly or indirectly, to bring about or continue such acts or omissions with respect to the plaintiff"s employees or with respect to its agents or contractors or the masters, officers and crews of any vessels proceeding to or from the area of the port of Corner Brook referred to herein for the purposes of loading or discharging cargo at, or bound for, the plaintiff"s property known as the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill; |
| (d) maintaining, placing, anchoring, securing, affixing or deploying, whether temporarily or permanently, any matter, material, work, object or other thing, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any rope or wire line, chain, anchor, apparatus, structure or vessel which interferes with the navigation of vessels in the port of Corner Brook; |
| (e) with the knowledge of the defendants or either of them, allowing any members, servants or agents of the defendant CEP, Local 60N or other persons having knowledge of this Honourable Court"s order herein to continue to remain in closer proximity than 200 feet from the water side of the plaintiff"s wharf in the port of Corner Brook; |
| (f) interfering with the free and unfettered access by any vessel to the plaintiff"s wharf in the port of Corner Brook or from the plaintiff"s wharf to the remainder of the port of Corner Brook and to the open sea and from declaring, authorising, counselling, aiding, engaging or conspiring with others, whether directly or indirectly, to bring about or continue such acts or omissions with respect to the plaintiff"s employees or with respect to its agents or contractors or the maters, officers and crews of any vessels referred to herein; |
| (g) such further or other relief as shall seem just to this Honourable Court. |
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
EVANS J.:
[1] The plaintiff has applied for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from preventing vessels from docking at the plaintiff"s wharf in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, with supplies of wood chips for its pulp and paper mill. Counsel for the plaintiff alleges that the conduct in question is in breach of federal legislation, including provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and of regulations enacted under the Canada Shipping Act.
[2] The conduct of the defendants that is in question here involves the erection of 1,000 feet of rope horizontal to the water, and about 50 feet from the plaintiff"s wharf. The rope is secured at each end by anchors and between these points is supported by buoys. In addition, small boats, sometimes with people on board, are moored to it. The rope, buoys and boats are intended to prevent vessels from docking at the plaintiff"s wharf.
[3] It would also appear from the affidavits filed with this application that, as they came towards the wharf, vessels have been impeded by small motor boats which approached close and "buzzed" them. One also came to a stop in front of the bow of a vessel. In order to avoid a serious accident the vessels in question have anchored some way off the wharf. It is also alleged that the crew of one has been subjected to threats if it attempts to dock, and that damage has been done to the ship.
[4] These activities have occurred in the course of a lawful strike by wood cutters employed by the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff alleges, unless the vessels are able to dock and unload the wood chips the mill will shut down and employees at the mill, who are not involved in the dispute, will be laid off.
[5] This matter was heard by telephone conference. It is an ex parte application. However, notice was served at the last moment and counsel for the defendants participated from St. John"s in the hearing. Since there was no time for any material to be filed on behalf of the defendants, or for deponents to be cross-examined on affidavits filed to support the plaintiff"s motion, the fact that counsel for the defendants appeared to oppose the motion does not alter its ex parte character.
[6] Only in the most exceptional circumstances will an ex parte injunction be granted. There must be evidence that unlawful conduct has created a situation of such urgency that relief should be granted without notice to the defendant. Indeed, courts are particularly reluctant to grant interlocutory injunctions in the context of labour disputes, even when sought on an inter partes basis, because of their normally conclusive effect.
[7] I have decided not to grant the relief sought here, for two reasons. First, on the evidence before me I was not satisfied that the plaintiff had established the existence of a situation of sufficient urgency to warrant granting the remedy sought on this motion.
[8] There was no evidence that the defendants intend to interfere further with the anchored vessels, as long as they do not attempt to dock. Rather, counsel relied principally on the economic harm to the company and its employees if the conduct in question were not enjoined immediately, and the wood chips unloaded.
[9] In fact, the plaintiff"s present inventory of wood chips will enable it to operate for approximately 11 days from the date of this order without receiving fresh supplies. I should note that this is a fact that was not disclosed by the plaintiff, as it should have been in an ex parte motion. Instead, it was brought to my attention by counsel for the defendants.
[10] Second, while I accept that this matter falls within the Court"s maritime jurisdiction, this jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the courts in the provinces. The question is whether I should exercise my discretion to issue the equitable remedy sought. Since the breach of federal law relied on by the plaintiff is in the furtherance of a labour dispute that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland seems to me a more appropriate forum.
[11] I note here, too, that the only interference with navigation and shipping that is apprehended by the plaintiff is the prevention of docking at its wharf. The masters of the vessels concerned wisely have no intention of endangering lives by running the gauntlet of "buzzing" boats and suspended ropes.
[12] For these reasons the application is dismissed.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO "John M. Evans"
July 23, 1999. J.F.C.C.