Injunctive Relief — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Injunctive Relief
In Ontario employment law, injunctive relief is an extraordinary equitable remedy. Instead of simply ordering one party to pay monetary damages to the other, a court grants an injunction to compel someone to perform a specific act or strictly forbid them from doing something. Because it relies on the court's authority to directly restrict a person's or company's actions, judges consider it a drastic measure that should be granted only when financial compensation alone would not resolve the injustice.
Under Ontario's Courts of Justice Act, this remedy is commonly sought in highly contentious workplace disputes where time is of the essence. For employers, injunctive relief is typically pursued when a former worker—often a senior employee or a departing fiduciary—breaches their employment contract by soliciting clients, attempting to engage in unfair competition, or misappropriating confidential proprietary information. In these situations, the company may argue that allowing the employee to continue these actions will cause permanent, unquantifiable damage to the business's market share or reputation.
Conversely, employees, unions, or bargaining units might seek injunctive relief to prevent an employer from terminating a worker under disputed circumstances, or to reinstate an improperly removed union official. Employers might also use this tool during labour disputes to restrain picket lines if workers are engaging in tortious or criminal conduct, though Ontario courts are careful not to infringe upon constitutionally protected rights to peaceful expression.
To secure an injunction, a party generally must satisfy a strict three-part legal test established by Canadian courts. First, they must show there is a serious issue to be tried. Second, they must demonstrate that they will suffer "irreparable harm"—harm that cannot be fixed later with a cheque—if the order isn't granted. Finally, the "balance of convenience" must favor granting the order, meaning it is ultimately fairer to grant the restriction than to deny it.
Because the rules surrounding equitable remedies are complex and the evidentiary deadlines are extremely tight, securing or defending against such an order is rarely a do-it-yourself endeavor. Anyone facing a situation where an emergency court order seems necessary or imminent should urgently consult a qualified Ontario employment litigator to assess the tactical risks and draft the necessary affidavits.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between asking for damages and seeking injunctive relief?
Damages refer to financial compensation awarded to make up for a loss. Injunctive relief, however, is a direct court order demanding that a person or entity either stop doing something (like contacting certain clients) or start doing something (like returning stolen documents). Courts use injunctions when money alone is insufficient to fix the ongoing harm.
What exactly does 'irreparable harm' mean in an employment dispute?
Irreparable harm is damage that cannot be accurately quantified in a financial sense or adequately cured by a monetary award at a future trial. In an employment context, this often looks like the permanent loss of long-standing customer relationships, the destruction of a company's goodwill, or the irreversible leaking of sensitive trade secrets.
Can I get an injunction to stop my employer from firing me?
It is theoretically possible but exceedingly rare in Ontario. Courts generally strongly prefer to award monetary damages for wrongful dismissal rather than forcing an employer to maintain a broken employment relationship. Exceptions sometimes exist in specialized union contexts or specific statutory frameworks, but generally, employees cannot easily block a termination.
If an employer requests an emergency injunction against me, how soon do I need a lawyer?
You need to retain litigation counsel immediately. Employers can sometimes seek temporary court orders on very short notice—or even without you present in court initially (ex parte). Responding requires rushing sworn affidavits and legal arguments, meaning a delay of even a few days can result in a binding court order against you.
Will a court grant an injunction against striking workers?
Ontario courts will not issue an injunction simply to stop peaceful picketing, as this is a constitutionally protected form of expression. However, an employer may successfully obtain an injunction to limit picketing activities if the union is engaging in illegal conduct, such as physically blocking property access, destroying property, or engaging in tortious intimidation.
What happens if I ignore an injunction ordered by an Ontario court?
Failing to comply with a court order can lead to severe consequences, including being found in contempt of court. This can result in significant financial penalties, an order to pay the opposing party's legal costs, and in extreme cases, imprisonment.
Common Scenarios
- A senior executive resigns to join a direct competitor and immediately begins using an illicitly downloaded client list to solicit business, prompting the former employer to file for an injunction to halt the contact.
- During a highly volatile but lawful strike, picketing workers begin physically obstructing delivery trucks and blocking management from entering the facility, leading the company to seek an order limiting the picket line's location and numbers.
- A departing core developer transfers proprietary source code to a personal cloud drive before their last day, driving the employer to seek an urgent court order preserving the digital evidence and banning its use.
- Following an aggressive internal dispute, an elected union president is abruptly removed from their role over unproven allegations, and they seek injunctive relief to freeze the removal and reinstate their position pending a formal hearing.
What You Should Know
- If you are an employer seeking an injunction, do not delay. Courts often view unexplained delays as proof that the harm you are facing is not actually 'irreparable' or urgent.
- Employers must be prepared to give an 'undertaking as to damages' when seeking temporary restrictions. If you get a pre-trial injunction against a former employee but ultimately lose the final trial, you may have to compensate the employee for the financial losses the injunction caused them.
- Preserve all relevant digital and physical evidence the moment you suspect a breach of confidentiality; courts require concrete proof rather than mere suspicions when deciding whether to place legal restrictions on a worker's livelihood.
- Defending against an injunction requires swift, strategic action under Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure. Given the rapid timelines and strict legal tests involved, securing representation from a lawyer experienced in employment litigation immediately is the most vital step you can take.
Featured Cases
LivingArt Kitchens Inc. v. M.
2024 ONSC 3640 (CanLII) · 2024-06-25Costs Award in Employment Injunction Motion
This is a procedural ruling on an interlocutory motion for injunctive relief and costs in a matter classified under labour and employment. The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $170,000. The court considered the conduct of the parties, finding the plaintiff's conduct egregious, and applied principles of reasonableness and proportionality under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.
R. v. Ecolab Co.
2023 ONSC 5995 (CanLII) · 2023-10-23Former Employee Breach of Confidence & Fiduciary Duty
This interlocutory proceeding addresses whether a former employee breached fiduciary duties and employment contract confidentiality obligations by retaining and attempting to use confidential documents after termination. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that alleged employer misconduct negated the confidentiality of the documents and granted an injunction requiring the destruction of unlawfully obtained materials to prevent misuse of confidential business information.
Salina Chagpar Professional Corporation v J.
2023 ONSC 3153 (CanLII) · 2023-05-26Enforceability of Non-Solicitation Clauses in Employment
This is an interlocutory motion for injunctive relief regarding the enforceability of non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses in an employment contract. The plaintiff sought to prevent a former employee from soliciting clients and disclosing confidential information pending trial. The court granted the injunction, upholding the restrictive covenants as enforceable and finding that the plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm.
National Organized Workers Union v. Sinai Health System
2022 ONCA 802 (CanLII) · 2022-11-22Union Injunction: Mandatory Vaccination Policy
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an application judge's decision denying an interlocutory injunction. The union sought to prevent the hospital employer from enforcing a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy pending grievance arbitration. The application judge declined to intervene, finding that the potential harm of lost income could be fully remedied by an arbitrator. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming there was no remedial gap in the labour relations process to justify the court's residual jurisdiction. The denial of the injunction stands.
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. Toronto Transit Commission
2021 ONSC 7658 (CanLII) · 2021-11-20Union Challenge to Vaccination Mandate: Residual Jurisdiction
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning an application for injunctive relief by a union against an employer regarding a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. The central legal issue is whether the court should exercise residual jurisdiction to intervene in a labour dispute where the Labour Relations Act provides an adequate remedy through grievance arbitration, or if the union's Charter rights arguments must be addressed by the arbitrator.
Labrador Recycling Inc. v. F.
2021 ONSC 2195 (CanLII) · 2021-03-23Labrador Recycling v. F.: Injunction Denied
This is an interlocutory proceeding where the plaintiff sought urgent injunctive relief to restrain a former employee and his company from competing. The court applied the RJR MacDonald test for injunctive relief, examining the prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, as an injunction would impede the defendant's ability to earn a livelihood.
S. v Punjabi Community Health Services
2021 ONSC 991 (CanLII) · 2021-02-08Whistleblower Defence vs Confidentiality Injunction
This interlocutory motion addressed whether the employer was entitled to injunctive relief and a sealing order to protect confidential information allegedly misused by former employees. The court applied the R.J.R. Macdonald test for injunctive relief and considered the applicants' whistleblower defence, ultimately finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to justify the injunction.
PointOne Graphics Inc. v. R. et. al.
2021 ONSC 629 (CanLII) · 2021-01-26Injunction Denied: Restrictive Covenant Unenforceable
This interlocutory proceeding addressed a plaintiff's application for an interim injunction against a former employee and related parties to prevent solicitation of customers and use of confidential information. The court denied the injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, and also ruled that the restrictive covenant in the expired employment contract was unenforceable due to its lapse.
Voysus Connection Experts Inc. v. S.
2019 ONSC 6683 (CanLII) · 2019-11-20Confidentiality Injunction & Mareva Order in Employment Dispute
This is an interlocutory proceeding involving former employees who were subject to confidentiality obligations under their employment agreements. The court addressed the employer's application for a Mareva injunction to restrain proceeds from the sale of property and a motion to strike evidence allegedly obtained illegally. The court dismissed the motion to strike the evidence and refused to continue the Mareva order due to insufficient proof of asset dissipation, but granted an injunction prohibiting the former employees from using or disclosing confidential information.
Stress-Crete Limited v. H.
2019 ONSC 2773 (CanLII) · 2019-05-06Enforcement of Employment Restrictive Covenants
This is an interlocutory proceeding regarding the enforcement of restrictive covenants in an employment agreement. The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test to determine if injunctive relief was warranted against a former employee who joined a competitor, analyzing the reasonableness of non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses under Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers.
B. v. H.
2018 ONSC 1112 (CanLII) · 2018-02-15Union Constitution Dispute: Jurisdiction and Injunction
This is a procedural and jurisdictional ruling regarding a dispute between union members and their union. The court addressed whether it had jurisdiction to interpret the union's constitution, whether the union could be sued as a legal entity, and whether internal remedies must be exhausted before court action. The court granted an injunction to protect plaintiffs from retaliation while they pursued internal remedies.
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2395 v W.
2016 ONSC 8000 (CanLII) · 2016-12-20Workplace Harassment: OHSA and Condominium Injunction
A condominium corporation sought injunctive relief and declaratory orders against a respondent for conduct characterized by threats and intimidation towards condominium personnel and residents. The court addressed whether the respondent's actions constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and whether they violated condominium by-laws regarding quiet enjoyment. The application also involved procedural issues regarding mental examinations and substituted service.
Limen Group Ltd. v. B.
2014 ONCA 680 (CanLII) · 2014-09-23OLRB Exclusive Jurisdiction: Collective Agreements Appeal
This is an appeal concerning the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) over disputes involving collective agreements in the construction industry. The appellants challenged the legality of collective agreements and a Memorandum of Agreement, seeking injunctive relief and alleging a deprivation of effective remedies. The court addressed whether the OLRB has exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and whether the motion judge erred in refusing injunctive relief.
Limen Group Ltd. v. B.
2014 ONSC 4004 (CanLII) · 2014-07-07OLRB Exclusive Jurisdiction: Weber Framework Applied
This is a procedural ruling concerning the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) over a dispute involving collective agreements and alleged anti-competitive conduct by unions and employer bargaining agencies. The court applied the Weber v. Ontario Hydro framework and declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief, thereby upholding the OLRB's statutory authority.
1003126 Ontario Ltd. v. C.D.
2013 ONSC 278 (CanLII) · 2013-02-22Non-Compete Enforceability & Injunctive Relief
This interlocutory proceeding addressed the enforceability of a non-competition clause in an employment context and the plaintiff's application for injunctive relief. The court found the non-competition clause unreasonable due to excessive temporal restrictions and determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or provide sufficient financial information for an undertaking as to damages. Consequently, the balance of convenience favored the defendant.
Portable Packaging Systems Inc. v. B.
2011 ONSC 4440 (CanLII) · 2011-07-19Enforceability of Non-Compete Clauses in Employment
This case concerns an application by an employer seeking injunctive relief and damages against a former employee for breaching restrictive covenants in their employment contract. The court addressed whether the non-competition and non-solicitation clauses were enforceable and whether the employee's actions in joining a competitor constituted a breach. Additionally, the case examined the appropriate measure of damages for such a breach.
Road Trailer Rentals Inc. v. R.
2008 CanLII 5645 (ON SC) · 2008-02-19Injunction Test in Employment Dispute
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning the test for granting an injunction in an employment-related matter. The case involves Road Trailer Rentals Inc. and R., focusing on procedural standards for injunctive relief.
D. v. Canada (Attorney General)
2006 CanLII 12322 (ON SC) · 2006-04-13Wrongful Dismissal of Federal Public Servant on Disability Leave
A wrongful dismissal case involving a federal public servant on long-term disability leave, where the employer considered termination for failure to comply with a medical evaluation request. The plaintiff alleged that workplace harassment exacerbated his medical condition and sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent termination. The court considered whether termination was justified under Treasury Board policies and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, as well as the availability of injunctive relief against the Crown.
W. v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation
2003 CanLII 14546 (ON SC) · 2003-04-03Union President Reinstatement: Injunction Denied
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a union member's application for a mandatory injunction to be reinstated as president of a bargaining unit after removal for alleged misconduct. The court addressed issues of procedural fairness, natural justice, and the clean hands doctrine, ultimately denying the injunction because the plaintiff's harm was compensable by damages and the balance of convenience favoured the union.
KJA Consultants Inc. v. S.
2002 CanLII 49613 (ON SC) · 2002-02-11Senior Employee Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Injunction Granted for 18 Months
A breach of fiduciary duty case involving a senior employee who solicited over 300 clients and used confidential information, leading to a dispute over whether such actions constituted unfair competition and breach of obligations. The court considered injunctive relief and the duration of the injunction based on equitable principles.