Yes, but only in limited circumstances. In Ontario, Rule 40.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order to be granted without notice for a short period. Because the other side is not present to respond, the moving party must make full and fair disclosure of all material facts to the court.
For a broader explanation of injunctive relief, see What is an injunction in Ontario?.
How long can a without-notice injunction last?
Under Rule 40.02(1), an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order granted without notice may remain in effect for no more than 10 days.
If the moving party wants the order extended, the normal rule is that notice must then be given to every party affected by it.
An extension may itself be granted without notice only where the judge is satisfied that a party has been evading service or that other exceptional circumstances justify proceeding again without notice. A further without-notice extension is also limited to a maximum of 10 days.
For the distinction between without-notice, interlocutory, mandatory, and other forms of relief, see What types of injunctions are available in Ontario?.
What does “full and fair disclosure” require?
A without-notice motion places a particularly important obligation on the moving party because the judge initially hears only one side of the dispute.
Rule 39.01(6) expressly requires the moving party or applicant to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts. That obligation includes material facts relevant to the court’s decision, not simply the facts that favour the requested injunction.
The Rule also provides a significant consequence: failure to make full and fair disclosure is itself sufficient ground for setting aside the order obtained without notice.
The motion record and affidavit evidence therefore need to present the factual circumstances accurately and fairly, particularly where there are facts that the responding party might rely on if present.
Does the ordinary injunction test still matter?
Yes. Proceeding without notice does not eliminate the substantive requirements for obtaining injunctive relief.
Depending on the type of order sought, the moving party must still establish the applicable legal basis for an interlocutory or mandatory injunction. That can include the RJR—MacDonald considerations of a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, or the stronger first-stage threshold applicable to certain mandatory orders.
See What do you have to prove to get an interlocutory injunction in Ontario? for the broader test.
What other obligations can apply?
Under Rule 40.03, a party moving for an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order must, unless the court orders otherwise, give an undertaking concerning damages that may result if the order is ultimately found to have caused compensable harm to the responding party.
That obligation is particularly important where an order is sought before the responding party has had an opportunity to be heard.
How does ME Law approach a without-notice injunction?
ME Law assesses whether proceeding without notice is procedurally justified, what immediate harm is alleged, what evidence must be placed before the court, and whether the proposed order is appropriately limited in scope and duration.
Particular attention must be given to the disclosure obligation. The objective is not simply to present the strongest facts for the applicant, but to ensure that the court receives the material information required to decide whether temporary relief should be granted in the absence of the responding party.
For ME Law’s approach to urgent without-notice relief, see Emergency Ex Parte Injunctive Relief.
Contact ME Law if you are considering seeking, extending, or responding to a without-notice injunction in Ontario.