Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1115
The appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal found no error in the Chambers judge's exercise of discretion: despite some defects in affidavit material there was admissible and uncontradicted evidence supporting a strong prima facie case of illegality and that no less restrictive measure would suffice,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2001 NSCA 128
- Parties
- Appellant: Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1115; Appellant: United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local 1588; Appellant: Unnamed Persons; Respondent: Sable Offshore Energy Inc.; Respondent: Fleetway Inc.
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 September 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Injunction Appeal / Appeal Heard and Dismissed by Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted but not successful on merits
- Legal Topics
- Picketing, Interlocutory Injunction, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Discretion
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1115
Appellant
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local 1588
Appellant
Unnamed Persons
Appellant
Sable Offshore Energy Inc.
Respondent
Fleetway Inc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Appeal / Appeal Heard and Dismissed by Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Chambers judge erred in granting interlocutory injunctions restraining picketing at the facility
- 2 Whether the affidavit evidence was sufficient to establish a strong prima facie case of illegality and necessity of a restrictive order
- 3 Whether the appellate court should interfere with a discretionary interlocutory order
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal found no error in the Chambers judge's exercise of discretion: despite some defects in affidavit material there was admissible and uncontradicted evidence supporting a strong prima facie case of illegality and that no less restrictive measure would suffice, therefore interlocutory injunctions should stand.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted but not successful on merits
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Leave to appeal granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1115 Court Court of Appeal Date 2001-09-25 Citation 2001 NSCA 128 Docket CA 171670 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Cromwell, Thomas A. (Honourable Justice); Bateman, Nancy J. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Freeman, Gerald B. (Honourable Justice) (CA) Document Type Decision Decision Content Date: 20010925 Docket: CA 171670 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL [Cite as: Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1115, 2001 NSCA 128] Bateman, Freeman and Cromwell, JJ.A. BETWEEN: LABOURERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 1115, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS, LOCAL 1588 and UNNAMED PERSONS Appellants - and - SABLE OFFSHORE ENERGY INC., a body corporate, and FLEETWAY INC., a body corporate Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Counsel: N. Blaise MacDonald for the appellant unions Appellants, unnamed persons, not appearing M. Ross Langley and Rebecca Saturley for the respondent Sable Offshore Energy Inc. John H. Graham for the respondent Fleetway Inc. Appeal Heard: September 25, 2001 Judgment Delivered: September 25, 2001 THE COURT: Appeal dismissed per oral reasons for judgment of Bateman, J.A.; Freeman and Cromwell, JJ.A. concurring. BATEMAN, J.A.: (Orally) [1] The appellant unions seek leave to appeal and, if granted, reversal of two interlocutory orders of Justice John M. Davision of the Supreme Court enjoining picketing, inter alia, at the gas fractionation facility located at Point Tupper, Nova Scotia. [2] This is an appeal of a discretionary order of a Chambers judge. As has been said by this Court on many occasions, we will not interfere unless wrong principles of law have been applied or patent injustice would result. (See, for example, Exco Corporation Limited v. Nova Scotia Savings and Loan et al. (1983), 59 N.S.R. (2d) 331; 125 A.P.R. 331). [3] While we would grant leave to appeal, we are not persuaded that there is any error justifying interference with the Chambers judge's conclusion. While the affidavit material had some defects, there was admissible and uncontradicted evidence which amply supports the judge's fundamental conclusion that there was a strong prima facie case that the protesters’ actions were illegal and that no less a restrictive order would suffice. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs to each of the respondents in the amount of $1500 plus disbursements as taxed or agreed. Bateman, J.A. Concurred in: Freeman, J.A. Cromwell, J.A.