An Alberta Guide to Injunctions in Employment Law.

Injunctions are one of the most powerful legal tools available in Alberta employment law. Whether an employer is trying to stop a departing employee from raiding its client list, or an employee is seeking to halt an unlawful suspension, an injunction can provide immediate court-ordered relief before a trial ever takes place.

This guide covers what injunctions are, how they work, when they are used, and what you need to know to apply for one. Specifically, we address:

• What an injunction is and the legal test courts apply in Alberta
• The key situations in employment and business law where injunctions arise
• The difference between prohibitory and mandatory injunctions
• The difference between interlocutory and emergency injunctions
• Important doctrines that can affect your case, including clean hands and premature applications
• How to apply for an injunction, including the role of affidavit evidence, notice requirements, and the importance of asking for the right relief

What Is an Injunction?

An injunction is a court order that either compels a party to do something or prohibits a party from doing something. In Alberta, the Court of King’s Bench has the authority to grant an injunction in any case where it is ‘just or convenient’ to do so, under section 13(2) of the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2.

Unlike a damages award, which compensates a party after harm has already occurred, an injunction acts in real time. It can stop harmful conduct immediately or require urgent remedial steps before the matter proceeds to trial.

Injunctions are, however, an extraordinary remedy. Courts treat them as a drastic step, not a routine one. They are to be granted with caution and restraint, and only when the circumstances genuinely justify it.

The Legal Test for Injunctive Relief in Alberta

Alberta courts follow the three-part test established by the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 SCR 199. To obtain an interlocutory injunction, an applicant must establish:

1. Is There a Serious Issue to Be Tried: The applicant must show that there is a genuine legal dispute, not a frivolous or vexatious claim. This is a relatively low threshold. The court is not asked to decide the merits at this stage. However, as explained below, a higher standard applies in some cases.
2. Would the Applicant Suffer Irreparable Harm Without the Injunction: Irreparable harm means harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages after the fact. If a damages award would fully remedy the loss, an injunction will generally not be granted. Courts look at whether the harm is concrete, imminent, and not easily quantifiable in dollar terms.
3. Does the Balance of Convenience Favour Granting the Injunction: Even if the first two elements are satisfied, the court weighs the relative harm to each party. If granting the injunction would cause disproportionate hardship to the respondent compared to the benefit to the applicant, the court may decline to grant it. The overarching question is whether granting the injunction is just and equitable in the circumstances.

Modified Test In Certain Circumstances

In certain situations, the ‘serious issue to be tried’ branch is replaced by a stricter requirement. An applicant must instead establish a strong prima facie case, meaning they must show clear and compelling evidence of their legal right and a strong likelihood of success. This higher standard applies in the following contexts:

• Mandatory injunctions requiring positive action;
• Enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment, including non-compete and non-solicitation clauses; and
• Cases where the injunction would likely determine the matter entirely before trial, such as where a restrictive covenant will expire before the case is heard.

The rationale for this higher threshold is that if the injunction will effectively decide the case, the court must have greater confidence in the applicant’s legal position before imposing such relief.

Common Considerations for Injunctions

Prohibitory vs. Mandatory Injunctions

A prohibitory injunction tells a party to stop doing something. It is the more common form in employment disputes:

• Stop using a confidential client list
• Stop disclosing proprietary business information
• Stop contacting former customers in breach of a non-solicitation clause
• Stop working for a competitor during the term of a non-compete
• Stopping the exercise of a shotgun clause

Conversely, a mandatory injunction requires a party to take a positive step rather than simply refrain from conduct. Examples include:

• Return documents or electronic files
• Delete copies of confidential materials
• Swear an affidavit identifying all information taken

Interlocutory vs. Final Injunctions

Interlocutory Injunctions

Most injunctions are interlocutory, meaning they are temporary orders granted during the pendency of litigation. An interlocutory injunction holds the situation in place, preventing ongoing or imminent harm, until the underlying dispute is resolved at trial.

Because litigation can take months or years, an interlocutory injunction can effectively determine the practical outcome of a dispute. This is precisely why courts apply strict standards before granting them.

Final Injunctions

A final injunction is different: it is a permanent order issued by the court at the conclusion of a trial or other final determination of the parties’ rights.

A final injunction is granted where the court finds, after a full hearing on the merits, that the applicant is entitled to the relief sought. Unlike an interlocutory order, a final injunction does not depend on the balance of convenience or a preliminary assessment of the merits. The court has already decided who is right. The injunction is simply the remedy that follows.

In the employment context, a final injunction might permanently prohibit a former employee from using confidential information obtained during employment, or bar ongoing solicitation of clients in breach of a valid restrictive covenant. Where a defendant has been found to have misappropriated trade secrets, a final injunction may prevent them from ever using or disclosing that information, without a defined end date.

When Injunctions Arise: Common Employment Contexts

1. Enforcing a Restrictive Covenant

Restrictive covenants are clauses in employment agreements that limit what a departing employee can do after leaving. They typically take the form of non-compete clauses, which prohibit working for a competitor, or non-solicitation clauses, which prohibit contacting former clients or employees.

When an employer learns that a former employee is about to breach or has already breached a restrictive covenant, an injunction may be sought to stop the conduct immediately. Because these clauses are restraints of trade, courts scrutinize them carefully and require a strong prima facie case before granting injunctive relief.

Employers should be prepared to show that the covenant is reasonable in scope, duration, and geographic reach, and that the former employee is engaged in, or is about to engage in, conduct that violates it.

Learn more about non-compete clauses here.

2. Enforcing a Fiduciary Duty

Senior employees, such as directors, officers, and others in positions of trust and confidence, owe fiduciary duties to their employers. A fiduciary duty requires loyalty, good faith, and an obligation not to act in one’s own interest at the expense of the employer.

If a senior employee is found to be diverting business opportunities, misappropriating company resources, or competing against the employer while still employed, an injunction can be sought to halt the misconduct. Even after the employment relationship ends, fiduciary obligations may persist for a period of time.

Learn more about fiduciary duties here.

3. Enforcing Confidentiality Obligations

Employers may seek an injunction when a current or former employee is about to disclose, or has disclosed, confidential business information. This includes trade secrets, proprietary processes, client data, pricing strategies, and other commercially sensitive materials.

4. Anton Piller Orders

An Anton Piller order, now commonly known as a civil search order, is an extraordinary form of injunction that allows one party to search the premises of another party without advance notice, to preserve evidence that might otherwise be destroyed.

These orders are granted only in exceptional circumstances and require a very strong prima facie case. As explained by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Secure 2013 Group Inc v Tiger Calcium Services Inc, 2017 ABCA 316. The court must be satisfied that the respondent has relevant evidence in their possession, that there is a real possibility of destruction or concealment of that evidence, and that the potential harm to the applicant from non-disclosure outweighs any harm to the respondent from the search.

Anton Piller orders are most commonly sought in trade secret or confidential information cases where an employer has reason to believe a former employee has copied proprietary data and may delete it.

5. Mareva Injunctions

A Mareva injunction, also known as a freezing order, prevents a respondent from dissipating, moving, or hiding assets before a judgment can be enforced. In the employment context, a Mareva injunction may be relevant where an employer has a fraud or embezzlement claim against a former employee and is concerned that assets will be moved out of reach.

These orders are among the most powerful available in civil litigation. To obtain one, an applicant must show a good arguable case on the merits and a real risk that the respondent will remove or dissipate assets if not restrained.

6. Attachment Orders

An attachment order is a procedural mechanism that allows a creditor to have a debtor’s property seized before judgment. While distinct from a classic injunction, it serves a similar preventive function in protecting a party’s ability to recover a judgment at the end of litigation.

In employment disputes, attachment orders may arise in fraud or conversion claims where an employer is pursuing recovery of misappropriated funds or assets.

Other Important Considerations

Acknowledgment Clauses in Employment Contracts

Employment agreements sometimes include a clause in which the employee acknowledges, in advance, that the employer will suffer irreparable harm if the employee breaches a particular obligation, and that the employer will be entitled to an injunction as a remedy.

These clauses have limited enforceability. Courts have held that an injunction is a discretionary remedy, and the court maintains an overriding discretion to refuse it regardless of any contractual acknowledgment. Inserting a clause in which an employee agrees that the employer would suffer irreparable harm is not a substitute for actual evidence. Courts will require evidence of harm, not just a contractual recital of it.

Clean Hands

Because an injunction is an equitable remedy, a party seeking one must come to court with clean hands. The clean hands doctrine means that a party acting improperly in connection with the very matter in dispute may be denied equitable relief.

In the employment context, relevant examples of conduct that could amount to unclean hands include:

• An employer who has failed to pay a former employee amounts owing
• An employer who has misstated or overstated evidence in its affidavit materials
• A party who has failed to make full and frank disclosure of relevant facts to the court

For example, a party alleging bad faith will undermine its equitable position if the respondent can prove the party breached the agreement it is trying to enforce.

Premature Applications

An application for an injunction is premature unless there is a clear and present likelihood of a breach of a post-employment obligation. Mere suspicion that a former employee has acted improperly, without concrete evidence, is not enough.

If a former employee has already returned materials after the commencement of litigation, the fact of prior possession does not automatically support an injunction against future use. Courts will not grant an injunction simply on the principle that it would not harm the defendant if the defendant states they have no intention of breaching any obligation. There must be actual evidence, or strong inferences, that a breach has occurred or is about to occur.

Even where solicitation has taken place, an injunction may be refused if the court concludes that further solicitation is unlikely.

How to Apply for an Injunction in Alberta

Affidavit Evidence: The Foundation of Your Application

An injunction application is decided on affidavit evidence, not live testimony. Getting the affidavits right is critical. Alberta courts have been clear that injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and that the evidentiary standard must reflect that.

Use of Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence, meaning statements made outside of court that are tendered to prove the truth of their contents, is technically admissible on interlocutory applications. This was recently confirmed by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Manchester Rose Group Inc v Rutherford Seniors Development Ltd, 2026 ABCA 155. However, courts have emphasized that this does not mean that weak or unsubstantiated hearsay evidence will be enough to support injunctive relief.

Where it is reasonably practicable to obtain direct evidence from the individuals with personal knowledge of the relevant facts, courts expect applicants to do so. Relying on hearsay when direct evidence could have been obtained will undermine the weight of the application and may result in it being dismissed.

Double Hearsay: A Significant Risk

Double hearsay, meaning a statement recounting what one person was told by another, is generally not admissible. Courts have rejected the argument that double hearsay can be introduced as ‘narrative evidence.’ The narrow narrative exception applies only to evidence that fills in chronological gaps with explanatory, non-probative value. Double hearsay tendered to prove a material fact, or to support a reasonable inference, does not qualify.

In Epiroc Rock Drills AB v Zimmerman, 2025 BCSC 1757, the court rejected double hearsay affidavit evidence relied upon by the employer to establish that the former employee had arranged pre-employment consulting work with a competitor and had solicited current employees to join him. The affidavits failed to state when and how deponents were informed of these facts, or when and how the original source had learned them. The court refused to draw the requested inferences from this evidence.

When preparing an injunction application, practitioners and clients must ask, for every piece of evidence: Who has personal knowledge of this fact? Can that person swear an affidavit directly? If not, why not? Courts will ask these questions, and the answers matter.

With Notice vs. Without Notice Applications

With Notice: The Default Approach

Most injunction applications are brought on notice to the other side. This means the respondent is served with the application materials and has an opportunity to file responding affidavits and appear before the court.

Advantages of bringing the application with notice include:

• The court has a complete picture of the dispute from both sides
• Orders obtained on notice are generally more durable and harder to set aside
• The applicant demonstrates procedural fairness, which can influence how the court exercises its discretion
• There is less risk of a costs award for failing to give notice

The primary disadvantage is time. Giving notice alerts the respondent to the pending application, which may allow them to continue the impugned conduct, move assets, or destroy evidence before the court can act.

Without Notice: When Speed Is Essential

A without-notice application, also called an ex parte application, is brought without informing the other side. It is available only where the urgency of the circumstances makes it impractical or unsafe to give notice, or where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the relief.

Advantages include:

• Immediate relief can be obtained before the respondent is aware of the proceedings
• Evidence and assets can be preserved before they are altered or destroyed
• In cases involving Anton Piller orders, the element of surprise is essential to the effectiveness of the relief

The disadvantages and risks are significant:

• Applicants owe a heightened duty of full and frank disclosure, meaning they must put before the court all material facts, including those that are adverse to their position
• If the applicant fails to make full and frank disclosure, the order can be set aside, often with serious costs consequences
• Orders obtained without notice are interim in nature and will typically be reviewed at a return date, when the respondent appears and can challenge the order
• Courts are alert to applicants who seek emergency relief to gain a tactical advantage rather than because genuine urgency exists

The Importance of Tailored, Specific Relief

One of the most common errors in injunction applications is asking for relief that is too broad. Courts will not grant blanket orders that prohibit conduct beyond what is necessary to prevent the specific harm identified. Overly broad relief will either be refused outright or cut back by the court.

Effective injunction applications identify precisely:

• What conduct is to be prohibited or required
• What documents, files, or materials are at issue
• The geographic and temporal scope of any restrictions
• What steps are required to restore the status quo, such as returning documents or deleting files

Relief should be proportionate to the evidence. If the affidavit evidence supports concern about misuse of one specific client list, the order should be tailored to that list. Seeking an order that would effectively prohibit the respondent from working in their field, or that encompasses far more than the identified harm, will undermine the application.

Courts are particularly cautious about injunctive relief in employment disputes, recognizing that former employers sometimes seek injunctions not because genuine harm exists, but as leverage to suppress legitimate competition. Narrow, evidence-based relief is more likely to succeed and less likely to be set aside.

Speak with an Alberta Employment Lawyer

Injunction applications are high-stakes, time-sensitive, and technically demanding. Whether you are an employer seeking to protect confidential information or enforce a restrictive covenant, or an employee facing an application for emergency relief, getting experienced legal advice quickly is essential.

At Cashion Legal, our Calgary employment lawyers advise employers and employees on injunctions and all aspects of Alberta employment law. We can assess whether injunctive relief is appropriate, help prepare or respond to an application, and represent you before the Court of King’s Bench.

Book a case evaluation today.

Frequently Asked Questions About Injunctions