What's the difference between a mandatory and a prohibitory injunction in Ontario?
A prohibitory injunction orders someone to stop doing something - stop building past a property line, stop using confidential information, stop contacting a former client - preserving the existing state of affairs until trial. A mandatory injunction goes further, ordering someone to actively do something - tear down a structure already built, restore something that was removed, or take a specific positive step - which changes the current state of affairs rather than simply freezing it in place.
Because a mandatory injunction is more intrusive and harder to reverse if it later turns out to have been wrongly granted, Ontario courts apply an even more cautious version of the usual interlocutory injunction test to it, generally requiring a stronger, more convincing case on the merits before ordering someone to take affirmative action before trial, compared to what's needed to simply maintain the status quo with a prohibitory order. This distinction matters practically when deciding what to actually ask a court for - framing relief as maintaining rather than changing the status quo, where the facts genuinely support that framing, is often a more achievable path to interim relief than seeking a mandatory order outright.
Key takeaways
- A prohibitory injunction stops conduct and preserves the status quo; a mandatory injunction requires active steps that change it.
- Mandatory injunctions are harder to obtain and generally require a stronger case on the merits given how intrusive they are.
- Courts are more cautious with mandatory relief because it's harder to reverse if later found to be wrongly granted.
- Framing requested relief as preserving rather than changing the status quo can be a more achievable path to interim relief.