The decision comes as the result of a labour dispute between R.W. Tomlinson, a division of the Ottawa-based Tomlinson Group of Companies, and the Labourers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 527, which represents R.W. Tomlinson’s road and sewer workers.
During a strike, LIUNA picketed both R.W. Tomlinson’s properties and those operated by 2839034 Ontario Inc. and Tomlinson Environmental, divisions of the larger Tomlinson group that were not part of the collective agreement but who eventually claimed that the strike caused them commercial harm.
The lower court judge ruled R.W. Tomlinson, as a party to a collective agreement, must arbitrate with LIUNA. But he also concluded the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims of the numbered company and Tomlinson Environmental Services because they arose from the same dispute — a move that prevented an attempt to undercut labour arbitration through parallel litigation.
But Chief Justice Michael Tulloch, writing for a unanimous Court of Appeal, held that the lower court’s ruling produced a “jurisdictional dead end” — two corporate appellants left without an available forum, since a labour arbitrator has no authority over non-parties to a collective agreement.
“Such outcomes invite structural scrutiny,” he wrote.
To safeguard the rule of law and access-to-justice principles, Chief Justice Tulloch wrote the Superior Court must retain jurisdiction over claims involving non-parties to a collective agreement, because a labour arbitrator has no personal jurisdiction over them.
“At the same time, respect for the integrity of labour arbitration requires the court to consider whether to temporarily stay such parallel litigation pending arbitration between the parties to the collective agreement,” he wrote. “This approach avoids both jurisdictional dead ends and the risk that the parties or related entities may use litigation involving non-parties to undercut the arbitral process.”
Chief Justice Tulloch wrote the case required “careful attention to several structural principles” that shape Ontario’s labour relations system — namely the rule of law, access to justice and the proper respect owed to specialized tribunals charged with administering a legislative scheme.
“Taken together, these principles guide how jurisdiction and decision-making sequencing are allocated between courts and labour arbitrators, ensuring that every dispute has an appropriate adjudicative forum and that parallel proceedings do not undermine the statutory process,” he wrote.
As a result of his findings, Chief Justice Tulloch found the Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear the claims of the numbered company and Tomlinson Environmental Services — but stayed those claims until the grievance between R.W. Tomlinson and LIUNA is settled. He was joined by Justices Sarah Pepall and Renee Pomerance in his ruling (R.W. Tomlinson Ltd. v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 527, 2025 ONCA 861).
Michael Lynk, Western University faculty of law
“I thought the court was smart in analyzing and respecting this division of labour between arbitrators on the one hand and the courts in the other by saying it’s the labour arbitrators who should have the jurisdiction on this,” he said. “That’s the most efficient and expert way for having these decisions reviewed and decided, and it respects the court’s deference towards arbitrators and specialized administrative tribunals.”
Lynk said the decision was important for labour lawyers “on both sides of the fence.”
“As the court noted, labour tribunals have speed and accessibility on their side — and most importantly, they have expertise on their side,” he said. “So that’s one important lesson — a lawyer’s go-to spot for legal adjudication is going to be a labour arbitrator or the labour relations board.”
And Lynk said it is “well-known” that labour relations boards and arbitrators have been recognized by the courts as having among the most experience and expertise of all administrative tribunals across the country.
“Administrative law really began with the birth and origins of labour law immediately after the Second World War,” he said. “So, what a labour lawyer is going to learn from all this is that you always look to labour tribunals for having the primary jurisdiction over virtually all issues that arise under a collective agreement.”
Neither counsel for Tomlinson nor LIUNA responded to a request for comment.
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Ian Burns at Ian.Burns@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5906.