Interim Injunction — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Interim Injunction
In Ontario employment law, an interim injunction is a temporary, emergency court order that compels a party to either do something or stop doing something until a full trial can take place. Because employment litigation can take years to resolve, these urgent orders are designed to prevent catastrophic, irreversible damage in the meantime.
Most commonly, interim injunctions are sought by employers attempting to stop a former employee from breaching a restrictive covenant, such as a non-competition or non-solicitation clause, or to prevent the misuse of confidential information. While less common, employees can also seek interim injunctions. For example, an employee might ask a court to halt a mandatory retirement policy to preserve their employment while an age discrimination claim under the fixed terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Ontario Human Rights Code is being litigated.
Ontario courts do not grant interim injunctions lightly, as they severely impact a person's ability to earn a living or run a business before a final legal decision is made. To obtain this temporary order, the applicant must satisfy a strict three-part legal test established under common law.
First, there must be a 'serious issue to be tried'—though when an employer aims to enforce a restrictive covenant like a non-compete, the standard is elevated; they must demonstrate a 'strong prima facie case' that the contract is legally enforceable. Second, the applicant must prove they will suffer 'irreparable harm' if the injunction is not granted. Irreparable harm means damage that cannot be fixed simply by paying money later, such as a permanent loss of market share or the destruction of a company's reputation. Finally, the court weighs the 'balance of convenience,' determining which party would suffer greater harm from the granting or refusing of the temporary order.
Because seeking or defending against emergency court motions involves rapid deadlines and complex evidentiary burdens, handling these matters alone is incredibly risky. The outcome of a motion for an interim injunction often dictates the result of the entire dispute, meaning swift consultation with a qualified Ontario workplace lawyer is a critical first step to protecting your legal interests.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between an interim injunction and a permanent injunction?
An interim injunction is a temporary, pre-trial order meant to stabilize a situation and prevent immediate harm while a lawsuit is ongoing. A permanent injunction is a final order granted at the end of a trial, permanently restricting a party's actions as part of the formal court judgment.
What does 'irreparable harm' mean in an employment dispute?
Under Ontario law, irreparable harm refers to damage that cannot be adequately compensated with a financial payout at a later trial. In the workplace context, this often includes permanent loss of key clients, destruction of business goodwill, or public exposure of highly sensitive trade secrets.
Can my former employer get an interim injunction just because I signed a non-compete agreement?
No. The presence of a signed contract is not enough on its own. The employer must convince a judge that they have a strong case that the specific clause is reasonable and enforceable, that they will face irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favours shutting down your new employment pending a trial.
Are interim injunctions ever used to protect employees?
Yes, although they are far less common than employer-led injunctions. An employee might successfully seek an interim injunction to keep their job pending the outcome of a significant legal challenge, such as fighting a discriminatory mandatory retirement policy.
How quickly can a court issue this type of temporary order?
Interim injunctions are treated as urgent matters and can be heard by an Ontario judge in a matter of weeks, or sometimes even days if the threat is severe and immediate. Under extreme circumstances of fraud or data theft, they can initially be granted without notice to the other party.
Do I need to hire an employment lawyer if I am served with motion materials for an injunction?
Absolutely. The timelines for responding to an injunction motion are incredibly tight, and failing to mount a proper defense could result in a court order that temporarily bans you from working in your industry or operating your new business.
Common Scenarios
- A dental associate resigns from a local clinic and immediately opens a competing practice two kilometers away, prompting the former clinic to seek an urgent interim injunction to enforce a 15-kilometre, three-year non-competition clause.
- A senior sales executive downloads a proprietary client database to a personal hard drive before leaving for a rival tech company, leading the former employer to rush to court to stop them from utilizing the stolen data before a full trial.
- A fleet supervisor facing a mandatory retirement policy at age 65 applies for a temporary court order to maintain their active employment status while pursuing a constitutional age discrimination challenge against the employer.
- A former employee starts a competing logistics venture and courts their previous employer's staff, but the employer's request for an interim injunction is denied by a judge because they fail to prove actual irreparable financial harm.
What You Should Know
- If you are served with notice of an interim injunction application, do not ignore it—retain legal representation immediately, as you may only have a few days to file opposing sworn affidavits.
- Before resigning to join a competitor, have a professional review your employment contract to assess whether your employer has a strong enough case to attempt an injunction against you.
- Employers seeking an injunction should gather robust documentary evidence showing actual lost business or data theft; judges will not grant emergency orders based on mere suspicion or generalized fear.
- Keep in mind that if you successfully obtain an interim injunction but ultimately lose at the final trial, you may be ordered to compensate the other party for the income they lost while the temporary order was in place.
Featured Cases
S. v. Queen’s University
2026 ONSC 2253 (CanLII) · 2026-04-22Workplace Investigation Independence: OHS Act Injunction Refused
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning an application for interim relief and a mandatory order related to an investigation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test to determine whether to grant an injunction or mandatory order to compel or restrain an investigation, ultimately refusing relief as the balance of convenience favored the statutory duty to investigate and irreparable harm was speculative.
Purolator Inc. v. J.D. et al.
2024 ONSC 6696 (CanLII) · 2024-11-30Secondary Picketing Injunction: Private Property Access
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning an application for an interim injunction to stop secondary picketing at a private property. The court addressed whether obstructing entry and exit from a logistics facility constitutes unlawful conduct justifying injunctive relief and whether section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act applies to secondary picketing by non-employees.
Wyse Meter Solutions Inc v. P.
2024 ONSC 840 (CanLII) · 2024-02-07This is an interlocutory proceeding involving an application for an interim injunction in a dispute between an employer and an individual concerning contractual obligations.
Premier Implementation Solutions Canada Inc. v. Unifor, Local 222
2024 ONSC 445 (CanLII) · 2024-01-19Union Picketing Injunction: Lawful Strike Obstruction
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning an application for an interim injunction by an employer against a union during a lawful strike. The court addressed whether the union's picketing constituted unlawful obstruction and nuisance, and whether the statutory requirements for granting an injunction without proper notice were met.
Windsor Salt Ltd./Sel Windsor Ltée.
2023 ONSC 1431 (CanLII) · 2023-03-06Labour Dispute: Injunction Against Unlawful Picketing
This is an interlocutory proceeding where an employer sought an interim injunction to restrain unlawful picketing activity during a legal strike. The court addressed whether it had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief under the Courts of Justice Act, whether the affidavit evidence satisfied statutory requirements, and how to balance the employer's rights with the picketers' freedom of expression under the Charter.
P. v. S. et al.
2021 ONSC 8177 (CanLII) · 2021-12-13An interlocutory proceeding seeking an interim injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant.
P. v. S.
2021 ONSC 7891 (CanLII) · 2021-11-30Restrictive Covenants: Irreparable Harm Test
An interlocutory proceeding concerning the enforcement of restrictive covenants, specifically addressing whether the plaintiff can demonstrate irreparable harm to justify an interim injunction.
Aware Ads Inc. v. W. et al
2021 ONSC 7452 (CanLII) · 2021-11-10Interim Injunction Denied: Restrictive Covenants
This is an interlocutory motion for an interim injunction brought by an employer against former employees who allegedly breached restrictive covenants by competing and soliciting clients. The court dismissed the motion for interim injunction, finding insufficient evidence to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, particularly regarding the misuse of confidential information and the enforceability of the non-competition clause.
B. v. University Health Network
2021 ONSC 7139 (CanLII) · 2021-10-29Unionized Employees: Labour Arbitration vs Civil Court Jurisdiction
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning the jurisdiction of civil courts versus labour arbitration for unionized employees challenging a mandatory vaccination policy. The court applied Supreme Court of Canada principles from Weber and Horrocks to determine that unionized plaintiffs lacked standing to seek relief in civil court due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour arbitrator. For non-unionized plaintiffs, the court declined to continue the interim injunction, finding no evidence of irreparable harm under the RJR-MacDonald test.
B A Folding Cartons v. S.
2021 ONSC 2566 (CanLII) · 2021-04-06Interim Injunction: Breach of Confidentiality & Loyalty
An employment law case concerning an interim injunction sought to prevent a former employee or current employee from breaching confidentiality and the duty of loyalty to the employer.
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.
Sole Cleaning Inc. v. C.
2020 ONSC 7226 (CanLII) · 2020-11-24Workplace Discrimination: Injunction Denied for Social Media Posts
This is an interlocutory proceeding where an employer sought an interim injunction to remove social media posts made by a former employee alleging racism and wrongful termination. The court considered whether the employee's termination was racially motivated and retaliatory, balancing the employer's reputation against the employee's freedom of expression. The motion for an injunction was dismissed because the employer failed to demonstrate that the defences of justification and fair comment would inevitably fail.
2298679 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Northern Homecare Solutions Inc. et al.
2019 ONSC 3055 (CanLII) · 2019-05-17Interim Injunction: Former Employees & Confidential Info
This is an interlocutory proceeding where the plaintiff sought interim injunctive relief and Anton Piller orders against former employees accused of breaching confidence and committing injurious falsehood by misusing confidential customer lists. The court denied the Anton Piller order as overly intrusive but granted a ten-day interim injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill.
Planet Paper Box Group Inc.v. McEwan
2018 ONSC 6991 (CanLII) · 2018-11-22Enforceability of Non-Solicitation Clauses & Ex Parte Injunctions
This case concerns an employer's application for an interim injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against a former employee accused of soliciting clients and disclosing confidential information. The court examined whether the non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses were enforceable, considering public policy and the balance between protecting business interests and the employee's right to earn a livelihood. Additionally, the court addressed procedural issues regarding the ex parte nature of the motion, the adequacy of notice, and the admissibility of affidavit evidence based on anonymous sources.
Titanium Logistics Inc. v. B.S.D. Linehaul Inc.
2017 ONSC 7526 (CanLII) · 2017-12-15Enforceability of Non-Solicitation Clause in Employment
This interlocutory proceeding addressed the enforceability of a non-solicitation clause in an employment agreement and whether the defendant, a commissioned salesperson, owed fiduciary duties to the employer. The court found the non-solicitation clause enforceable for interim purposes and determined there was a prima facie breach, while noting that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff despite insufficient evidence of irreparable harm.
Edgetch HVAC Services Ltd. v U.
2016 ONSC 7564 (CanLII) · 2016-12-07Enforcing Restrictive Covenants & Injunctions
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning an interim injunction to enforce restrictive covenants and prevent the misuse of confidential information. The plaintiffs sought to restrain former employees and a shareholder from competing with the business and misusing confidential information, while the defendant shareholder raised oppression claims regarding exclusion from the business.
FLS Transportation Services Inc. v Charger Logistics Inc.
2016 ONSC 3652 (CanLII) · 2016-06-01Enforceability of Employment Non-Solicitation Clauses
This is an interlocutory proceeding where the plaintiff sought an interim injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against former employees who resigned and joined a competitor. The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of breach, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and did not approach the court with clean hands.
Claim Analytics v P. et al.
2016 ONSC 2235 (CanLII) · 2016-04-08Former Employee Trade Secret Injunction
This is an interlocutory proceeding where the plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain former employees from using or disclosing confidential information and trade secrets. The court addressed whether the plaintiff's Diagnosis Database constituted confidential information and applied the test for injunctive relief, including serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.
Teledyne Dalsa, Inc. v. B.L.
2014 ONSC 323 (CanLII) · 2014-01-15Interim Injunction & Anton Piller Order in Employment Dispute
This is an interlocutory proceeding where the plaintiff sought an Anton Piller order and an interim injunction against a former employee. The court addressed whether the plaintiff met the test for preserving evidence of alleged breaches of employment agreements, including non-disclosure and non-competition obligations, and whether an injunction was warranted to prevent disclosure of confidential information and solicitation of customers.
A Big Mobile Sign Company Inc. v. M.
2014 ONSC 16 (CanLII) · 2014-01-02Non-Competition Covenant: Interim Injunction
An employment law case concerning the enforcement of a non-competition covenant through an application for an interim injunction.