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
Salina Chagpar Professional Corporation v Jin
2023 ONSC 3153 (CanLII) · 2023-05-26Employment Contract: Injunction Granted for Non-Solicitation and Confidentiality
A court granted injunctive relief to prevent a former employee from soliciting clients and disclosing confidential information, upholding non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses in the employment contract. The court also awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.
Duyvenbode 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.
Cancoil Thermal Corp. v. Abbott
2004 CanLII 2565 (ON SC) · 2004-05-10Labour Dispute: Injunction Denied Over Picketing During Strike
A merits decision involving a dispute between an employer and a union over picketing activities during a lawful strike. The employer sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the picketing, but the court denied the injunction, emphasizing the constitutional protection of picketing as a form of expression and finding no tortious or criminal conduct.
Weisleder v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation
2003 CanLII 14546 (ON SC) · 2003-04-03Union Governance Dispute: Injunction Denied for Union President
A merits decision involving a union governance dispute where the plaintiff sought reinstatement as president of a bargaining unit after being removed for misconduct. The court denied the injunction due to lack of irreparable harm and balance of convenience favoring the union, while acknowledging procedural issues but finding them insufficient for injunctive relief.
KJA Consultants Inc. v. Soberman
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.
Diagnostic Imaging International (Canada) Ltd. v. Gervais
1993 CanLII 5571 (ON SC) · 1993-05-20Enforceability of Non-Competition Clauses in Employment Agreements
A case involving the enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment and shareholder agreements, particularly non-competition clauses in the context of a radiology practice. The court examines whether such covenants are enforceable and whether injunctive relief can be granted to prevent the respondent from practicing radiology or engaging in related business.
Smith Bros. Construction Co. Ltd. v. Jones et al.
1954 CanLII 348 (ON SC) · 1954-02-12Unlawful Strike and Picketing: Ontario Labour Relations Act Dispute
A merits decision involving a dispute over whether the defendants’ strike activities, including picketing and threats of contractual breaches, constituted an unlawful strike under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The court considered whether injunctive relief was warranted and whether the actions interfered with third-party contracts.