RWDSU v Dolphin Delivery

Dolphin Delivery clarified the application of the Charter under s.32. The Charter does not apply directly to private litigation founded purely on common law. It does apply to government action and to legislation. Court orders enforcing legislation are subject to the Charter; pure common-law actions between private parties are not.

Dolphin Delivery, a non-union company, sought an injunction against secondary picketing by RWDSU. The injunction was based on common-law tort doctrine. The union argued that the injunction violated s.2(b).

Does the Charter apply to a court-ordered injunction in a private common-law dispute?

No on these facts. Injunction stood.

Section 32 limits the Charter to "the Parliament and government of Canada" and "the legislature and government of each province". The Charter applies to legislation, government action, and court orders implementing legislation. It does not apply to a court order in a purely private common-law dispute. However, Charter values inform the development of the common law.

McIntyre J held that extending the Charter to private litigation would broaden its scope beyond text and purpose. The s.32 textual limit is real. But common-law evolution should be consistent with Charter values — Hill v Church of Scientology later refined this.

Foundational s.32 case. Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995) extended the values-influence-on-common-law doctrine. Pridgen v University of Calgary (Alta CA, 2012) is the modern marker for university discipline cases — illustrating the contested boundary.

RWDSU v Dolphin Delivery, [1986] 2 SCR 573, 1986 CanLII 5 (SCC).

Dickson CJ, Beetz J, Estey J, McIntyre J, Lamer J, Wilson J, Le Dain J