The balance of convenience is the third part of the usual test for a conventional interlocutory injunction. It asks which side should bear the interim risk while the underlying case remains unresolved. The court compares the practical consequences of granting the injunction with the consequences of refusing it.
The analysis comes from the framework in RJR—MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) and is contextual rather than mechanical. Even where there is a serious question to be tried and potential irreparable harm, the court must still determine whether the overall balance favours intervening before the merits have been finally decided.
For the complete framework, see What do you have to prove to get an interlocutory injunction in Ontario?.
What does the court compare?
The court considers the harm that may result to the moving party if the injunction is refused and the harm that may result to the responding party if the injunction is granted.
The analysis may include:
- the practical effect of the proposed order on each party;
- the nature and seriousness of the competing harms;
- whether either harm can later be compensated through damages;
- the existing position between the parties;
- the duration and scope of the proposed order;
- effects on third parties where relevant; and
- other circumstances bearing on whether interim relief would be equitable.
The court is not simply counting the number of disadvantages on each side. It is assessing the nature, likelihood, and practical significance of the competing consequences.
Does the status quo matter?
It can.
Preserving the existing position may be relevant because an interlocutory injunction is often intended to prevent the litigation from becoming practically meaningless before the court can determine the parties’ rights.
But preservation of the existing position is not an independent rule that automatically determines the result. The court must still assess the circumstances as a whole and determine which interim arrangement creates the more just and manageable risk while the proceeding continues.
Where the alleged harm itself is central to the analysis, see What does “irreparable harm” mean in an Ontario injunction motion?.
What if granting the injunction would seriously affect the responding party?
That effect matters directly to the balance of convenience.
For example, an injunction may restrict commercial activity, interfere with contractual rights, affect property, disrupt an existing business arrangement, or require operational changes before liability has been finally determined.
The court therefore considers not only the applicant’s need for protection but also the prejudice that interim relief may impose on the responding party.
This is one reason the scope and wording of the proposed order matter. A narrower order that addresses the demonstrated risk may create a different balance than an unnecessarily broad order.
Does the balance of convenience work differently for a mandatory injunction?
The balance-of-convenience requirement still applies where the requested interlocutory order is mandatory in substance and requires positive action.
The principal difference arises at the first stage of the test: mandatory interlocutory relief generally requires a strong prima facie case, rather than merely a serious question to be tried. The applicant must still establish irreparable harm and demonstrate that the balance of convenience favours the order.
See What is a mandatory injunction in Ontario? for that distinction.
How does ME Law assess the balance of convenience?
ME Law examines the practical consequences on both sides rather than treating the analysis as an abstract legal formula. That includes the evidence of threatened harm, the effect of the proposed order on each party, whether damages or other protections may reduce the risk, and whether the relief can be framed more narrowly.
The analysis is coordinated with the merits, irreparable harm, urgency, and the precise terms of the proposed order so that the court is given a clear picture of the competing interim risks.
For ME Law’s approach to interim injunctive relief, see Urgent Interlocutory and Interim Injunctions.
Contact ME Law if you are seeking or responding to an interlocutory injunction in Ontario.