Black and white photograph of the ornate upper facade of a courthouse, representing injunctive relief and urgent court applications in Ontario and BC

Injunctive Relief in Ontario and BC: How Injunctions Work and When to Seek One

Date: November 7, 2025

When a business dispute involves ongoing harm, an injunction is often the most important remedy available. Unlike damages, which compensate for loss after the fact, an injunction addresses harmful conduct in real time: it stops it, or compels action, before the damage becomes irreversible. Courts in Ontario and BC can grant injunctions within hours of an application in urgent cases. But they can also refuse them for a single reason that has nothing to do with the merits: delay.

This article explains what injunctive relief is, the three-part legal test that governs all injunction applications in Ontario and BC, the difference between mandatory and prohibitive injunctions, what irreparable harm actually means in practice, and how defendants can challenge an order once it is granted. For an overview of the full range of court-ordered remedies available in commercial disputes, see our guide to court orders in commercial litigation.

What is injunctive relief?
Injunctive relief is a court order requiring a party to do something (a mandatory injunction) or stop doing something (a prohibitive injunction). Its purpose is to prevent harm in real time rather than compensate for it after the fact. Courts in Ontario and BC can grant injunctions within hours of an application in urgent cases.

The governing test in both provinces comes from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311. The applicant must establish a serious issue to be tried, that irreparable harm will result without the order, and that the balance of convenience favours granting it. All three elements must be met. Failing one defeats the application regardless of how strong the others are.

Types of injunctions in Ontario and BC

By what they require

  • Prohibitive injunction: orders a party to stop doing something. The most common type in commercial disputes. Easier to obtain than mandatory injunctions.
  • Mandatory injunction: orders a party to take a specific positive action. Higher threshold: courts require a strong prima facie case rather than merely a serious issue.

By when they are granted

  • Interim injunction: granted urgently, sometimes within hours, on short notice or without notice. Preserves the status quo until a full hearing can be held.
  • Interlocutory injunction: in place until the matter is finally decided at trial or by settlement. The standard three-part test applies.
  • Permanent injunction: granted as part of the final judgment after trial. Requires the applicant to succeed on the merits of the underlying claim.

The three-part test: what you must establish

The test for an interlocutory injunction in Ontario and BC is drawn from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311, which replaced the earlier American Cyanamid test for Canadian courts. All three elements must be satisfied.

1. Serious issue to be tried The claim must not be frivolous or vexatious. This is a deliberately low threshold: the applicant does not need to show they will win at trial, only that there is a genuine legal question to be determined. The serious issue threshold is higher for mandatory injunctions, where courts require a strong prima facie case.
2. Irreparable harm The applicant must show they will suffer harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages if the injunction is refused. This is typically the most contested element. If money can fully repair the damage, courts will generally decline to grant injunctive relief and leave the applicant to their damages remedy at trial.
3. Balance of convenience The court weighs the harm to the applicant if the injunction is refused against the harm to the respondent if it is granted. The applicant must show the harm from refusal outweighs the harm from granting. Courts also consider the public interest and the strength of each party's case where the balance is otherwise close.

What counts as irreparable harm

Irreparable harm is the element that most frequently determines whether an injunction is granted. It does not mean catastrophic harm: it means harm that cannot be adequately repaired by a monetary award at the end of the proceeding. Understanding what does and does not qualify is essential to assessing whether injunctive relief is available in a given dispute.

Situations where irreparable harm is typically found

Ongoing disclosure or use of confidential information that cannot be undone once distributed; breach of a non-compete clause causing damage to goodwill and client relationships that is difficult to quantify precisely; harm to a unique asset or business opportunity that has no market equivalent; ongoing conduct that will permanently damage the applicant's reputation or market position; and situations where the defendant is unlikely to be able to satisfy a future damages award.

Situations where irreparable harm is typically not found

Pure financial loss that can be precisely calculated and quantified; situations where the defendant is clearly solvent and able to pay any damages award; harm that is contingent on future events rather than certain or imminent; and situations where the applicant's own conduct contributed to the harm or where delay suggests the situation was not truly urgent.

Why quantifiability matters

Courts frequently reason that if harm can be precisely quantified in dollars, it can be adequately compensated by damages. The harder it is to calculate the precise financial loss, the stronger the argument for irreparable harm. Loss of goodwill, damage to an ongoing client relationship, and harm to a unique competitive position are all difficult to quantify, which is why they regularly support irreparable harm findings in commercial injunction applications.

The undertaking as to damages

Every injunction application requires the applicant to provide an undertaking as to damages: a commitment to compensate the respondent for any loss caused by the injunction if it is later found to have been wrongly granted. Courts assess the applicant's financial ability to honour this undertaking. An applicant who cannot demonstrate capacity to pay significant damages on the undertaking may have difficulty obtaining an injunction for high-value claims.

Delay is the single most common reason injunction applications fail. Courts treat significant delay between discovering the harmful conduct and bringing the application as strong evidence that the harm is not truly irreparable. If the situation were genuinely urgent, the applicant would have acted immediately. A delay of even a few weeks can be fatal to an urgent application in Ontario and BC. If you need an injunction, the application must be brought the same day you get legal advice, not after further deliberation.

Common commercial contexts where injunctions are sought

Injunctions arise in a wide range of commercial disputes in Ontario and BC. The following are the most frequently litigated contexts.

  • Non-competition and non-solicitation clauses: stopping a former employee, director, or business partner from competing with the business or soliciting its clients in breach of their contractual obligations
  • Confidential information and trade secrets: preventing the use or disclosure of confidential business information obtained through a prior employment or business relationship
  • Intellectual property: stopping infringement of trademarks, copyright, or other intellectual property rights where ongoing infringement causes ongoing harm to goodwill and market position
  • Shareholder and corporate disputes: restraining a director or majority shareholder from taking specific corporate actions, selling assets, or making decisions pending resolution of the underlying dispute
  • Real estate transactions: preventing the sale or transfer of a specific property where specific performance is sought by the purchaser
  • Defamation: restraining the continued publication of defamatory statements where ongoing publication causes continuing reputational damage
  • Contractual obligations: compelling a party to perform a specific contractual obligation or restraining a breach of an exclusive dealing arrangement

Harmful conduct is ongoing and every day of delay makes it worse?

An interim injunction can be obtained within hours in appropriate cases. But delay is evidence that the harm is not truly irreparable, and courts can dismiss applications on delay alone. Get legal advice immediately, not after the situation has continued for another week.

Call: 1-800-771-7882 Find Out If You Can Get an Injunction Today

Ex parte applications: injunctions without notice

In the most urgent situations, an injunction can be obtained without giving notice to the respondent. An ex parte application is appropriate where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order, for example where the respondent would immediately take the harmful action upon learning the application is coming.

Ex parte applications impose heightened obligations on the applicant. Because the court is hearing only one side, the applicant must present the respondent's likely position fairly and disclose all material facts, including those that might weigh against granting the order. Failure to make full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application is a ground for setting aside the order even if the applicant would otherwise have been entitled to it.

An ex parte order is always temporary. The respondent must be served promptly after the order is granted and given an opportunity to appear before the court to challenge it at a return hearing. The applicant cannot rely on an ex parte order indefinitely.

How to defend against an injunction

Being served with an injunction does not mean the order will remain in place. Defendants have several avenues to challenge, vary, or discharge an injunction in both Ontario and BC.

Challenge the three-part test

At the return hearing after service of an ex parte order, or at the hearing of an on-notice application, the defendant can present evidence and argument challenging any of the three elements. Demonstrating that the claim has no serious issue, that the harm is compensable by damages, or that the balance of convenience favours the defendant can defeat the application or result in the order being set aside.

Non-disclosure on an ex parte application

Where the applicant obtained an ex parte order by failing to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, the defendant can bring a motion to set aside the order on that basis. Courts take this seriously: material non-disclosure can result in the order being set aside even if the applicant would have been entitled to it had they disclosed everything properly.

Delay by the applicant

Where the applicant was aware of the harmful conduct for a significant period before bringing the application, the defendant can argue that the delay demonstrates the harm is not truly irreparable. Courts can dismiss injunction applications on delay grounds regardless of the underlying merits. Evidence of the applicant's knowledge of the conduct and when they took steps to address it is central to this argument.

Provide alternative security

In some cases, particularly where the underlying dispute is primarily financial, a defendant can achieve a discharge or variation of an injunction by providing alternative security such as a bond, letter of credit, or payment into court of an amount representing the applicant's claimed loss. This preserves the applicant's ability to recover while freeing the defendant from the operational disruption of the injunction.

Injunctions in British Columbia

BC courts apply the same three-part RJR-MacDonald test as Ontario courts, drawing from the same Supreme Court of Canada authority. The substantive law on injunctions is identical in both provinces. The procedural differences are in the specific rules governing urgent applications and return hearings under BC's Supreme Court Civil Rules.

In BC, urgent injunction applications are heard by BC Supreme Court judges in chambers. The same principles regarding delay, full and frank disclosure on ex parte applications, and the undertaking as to damages apply in BC as in Ontario. A defendant served with an ex parte injunction in BC has the same right to bring an urgent return hearing to challenge the order.

Where an injunction is sought in connection with a BC commercial or corporate dispute, counsel familiar with BC Supreme Court practice and the specific procedural requirements for urgent applications is essential. The speed at which these applications move means there is no margin for procedural error.

Facing harmful conduct in Ontario or BC that needs to stop immediately?

Injunctive relief is available on an urgent basis but requires immediate action. An application that could have been brought today and was delayed by a week may be denied on that basis alone. Get advice on your specific situation now.

Find Out If You Qualify for an Injunction Or call us: 1-800-771-7882

Practical takeaways

Injunctions address ongoing harm in real time. The three-part RJR-MacDonald test requires a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring the applicant. All three must be satisfied.
Delay is fatal to injunction applications. Courts treat significant delay as evidence the harm is not truly irreparable. If you need an injunction, the application must be brought the same day you obtain legal advice.
Mandatory injunctions requiring positive action carry a higher threshold than prohibitive injunctions requiring a party to stop. Courts require a strong prima facie case for mandatory orders rather than merely a serious issue.
Irreparable harm means harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages. Loss of goodwill, ongoing disclosure of confidential information, and harm to unique business assets regularly qualify. Pure financial loss that can be precisely calculated generally does not.
Ex parte applications require full and frank disclosure of all material facts including those that favour the respondent. Failure to disclose is grounds to set aside the order even if the applicant would otherwise have been entitled to it.
The same test applies in Ontario and BC. Both provinces follow RJR-MacDonald. The procedural differences are in the specific court rules governing urgent applications and return hearings.

Frequently asked questions

What is injunctive relief in Ontario and BC?

Injunctive relief is a court order requiring a party to do something (mandatory injunction) or stop doing something (prohibitive injunction). Its purpose is to prevent harm in real time rather than compensate for it after the fact. Courts in both provinces can grant injunctions within hours of an application in urgent cases. The governing test comes from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311.

What is the test for an injunction in Ontario and BC?

Courts apply the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald: the applicant must establish a serious issue to be tried, that irreparable harm will result without the order, and that the balance of convenience favours granting it. All three elements must be satisfied. Failing one defeats the application regardless of how strong the others are.

What is irreparable harm in an injunction application?

Irreparable harm means harm that cannot be adequately compensated by a monetary damages award. It is typically found where the subject matter is unique, where ongoing disclosure of confidential information cannot be undone, where damage to goodwill cannot be precisely quantified, or where the defendant may not be able to satisfy a damages award. Pure financial loss that can be precisely calculated generally does not qualify.

Why does delay defeat injunction applications?

Delay between discovering the harmful conduct and bringing the application is treated by courts as strong evidence that the harm is not truly irreparable. If the situation were genuinely urgent, the applicant would have acted immediately. Courts can and do dismiss injunction applications on delay grounds alone, even where the underlying merits are strong. Act the same day you identify the need for an injunction.

What is a mandatory injunction?

A mandatory injunction requires a party to take a specific positive action, as opposed to a prohibitive injunction which requires a party to stop doing something. Mandatory injunctions carry a higher threshold: courts generally require a strong prima facie case rather than merely a serious issue to be tried. They are harder to obtain and less common than prohibitive injunctions in commercial disputes.

How can a defendant challenge an injunction in Ontario or BC?

A defendant can challenge an injunction at the return hearing by demonstrating that the three-part test is not satisfied, that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application, or that the applicant delayed unreasonably in bringing the application. Providing alternative security can sometimes achieve a discharge while protecting the applicant's interests.

Facing harmful conduct that needs to stop immediately, or served with an injunction in Ontario or BC? Tell us what's happening.

Whether you need urgent injunctive relief to stop ongoing harm or you have been served with an injunction and need to assess your options at the return hearing, Achkar Law advises businesses and individuals across Ontario and British Columbia on injunctions and injunctive relief. We move quickly because the situation demands it.

Call us at 1-800-771-7882 or fill out the form below and we will be in touch.