Emergency Without-Notice and Ex Parte Injunctive Relief

Emergency Ex Parte Relief & Without-Notice Injunction Strategy

PREMIUM LEGAL SERVICES

Experienced. Aggressive. Client-Centered

Get Started

Successful Litigation Cases Handled

0 +

Litigation, Mediation, Trial - Focused

0 %

Years of Combined Legal Experience

0 +

In Handling Complicated Disputes

0 *

Why You Need Legal Help with Emergency Without-Notice and Ex Parte Injunctive Relief

A without notice injunction in Ontario is not sought because a dispute is important. It is sought because giving notice may itself defeat the remedy. By the time service is effected and an ordinary motion is heard, assets may have been transferred, title may have changed hands, evidence may have been destroyed, confidential information may already have been deployed, or a governance step may have been completed in a way that cannot realistically be unwound. In those circumstances, emergency without-notice injunction Ontario relief may be the only practical means of preserving rights until the court can hear the matter fully. Section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act provides the jurisdictional footing, and Rule 40 permits an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order to be sought by motion in a pending or intended proceeding.

But this is exceptional relief. In ordinary civil matters, Rule 40.02 allows a without-notice interlocutory injunction or mandatory order only for a limited period, generally not exceeding ten days unless extended under the rule. The structure of the Rules makes the point unmistakable: an ex parte injunction in Ontario is a temporary preservation tool, not a substitute for adversarial process. The applicant must therefore do more than demonstrate urgency. The applicant must show why notice would undermine the efficacy of the remedy, why the harm is genuinely time-sensitive, and why the order sought is narrow enough to be granted without hearing the other side first.

For sophisticated litigants, the practical lesson is simple. Emergency relief that cannot survive a return date is often of limited value. The real work lies not merely in obtaining the first order, but in presenting a motion record that is disciplined enough, fair enough, and proportionate enough to withstand immediate challenge.

Years of
combined
legal
experience

ME Law - Civil Litigation Law Firm

CIVIL LITIGATION SERVICES

ME Law is a litigation-focused firm acting on urgent ex parte injunction Ontario matters for corporations, principals, boards, hedge fund managers, lenders, estate stakeholders, real estate litigants, private companies, and other sophisticated parties whose legal position cannot tolerate ordinary delay. We act where immediate court intervention is necessary to preserve assets, protect evidence, stop transfers, contain corporate misconduct, restrain misuse of confidential information, or otherwise prevent interim harm from hardening into permanent prejudice.

Our work spans commercial litigation, shareholder and boardroom disputes, fraud-related asset-risk matters, real estate emergencies, commercial lease conflicts, estate and trust disputes, and insolvency-related applications. We act both for applicants seeking emergency injunction Ontario relief and for respondents moving to set aside, vary, or contain overreaching orders obtained without notice. Ontario’s Rules expressly contemplate both the making of without-notice injunctions and the later challenge to such orders, including by motion to set aside or vary.

We understand that emergency court relief Ontario proceedings are not ordinary motions. They are often decisive events in serious litigation. A well-framed order can preserve recoverability, hold a transaction in place, protect the integrity of evidence, or stabilize a corporate crisis. A poorly conceived one can invite immediate reversal, adverse cost consequences, or exposure under the undertaking as to damages. That is why we build ex parte records with the same care sophisticated counsel would bring to a compressed merits hearing.

Click to watch video

How We Help

CIVIL LITIGATION SERVICES

Anton Piller Orders and Civil Search Relief

ME Law is a litigation-only firm with deep experience in extraordinary remedies, including Anton Piller Orders. Litigation is all we do.

Injunctions

When legal harm is imminent, waiting for trial is not an option. Whether it’s unauthorized asset transfers, breach of contract, or reputational damage, injunctive relief allows you to act quickly to prevent further loss.

Urgent Interlocutory and Interim Injunctions

ME Law is a litigation-only firm with extensive experience handling interlocutory injunctions in commercial, real estate, employment, and property disputes. Litigation is all we do.

Asset Preservation and Mareva Injunctions

Whether applying for or defending against a Mareva injunction, you need counsel capable of handling urgent, complex, and high-stakes litigation. At ME Law, we prepare clear, persuasive, evidence-driven applications under intense time pressure. We understand the legal thresholds, the strategic considerations, and the practical realities of asset-related disputes.

Shareholder, Partnership, and Boardroom Crisis Injunctions

At ME Law, we represent businesses, founders, employers, and professionals in disputes involving restrictive covenants, unfair competition, and misuse of confidential information.

Permanent Injunctions and Final Equitable Relief

ME Law is a litigation-focused firm experienced in obtaining and defending against permanent injunctions. Our practice emphasizes strategic thinking, evidence development, and strong courtroom advocacy.

Why Choose Us

Premium Litigation Services:

Quality over quantity for selected clients in complex litigation matters

Selective Focus

We act for a select group of clients in high-stakes litigation, dedicating focused time and strategic attention to each matter to ensure precise, results-driven advocacy.

Limited Caseload

By limiting our caseload, we provide bespoke, high-level representation, where no detail is overlooked and every legal step is carefully considered. Quality over quantity is embedded in our ethos.

Strategic Execution

Our limited-file approach enables us to deliver thorough, strategic legal work on every matter. We don’t offer surface-level service – we provide clarity, focus, and substance.

Beyond Expectations

Our lawyers invest considerable time in legal analysis, research, and continuous training. This ongoing development allows us to stay ahead and deliver outcomes that often exceed clients’ expectations.

Clients’ Success Stories

Our cases

Strategic Commercial Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

Securing a $50M+ Mareva Injunction for a Silicon Valley Startup

Strategic Resolution of $5M+ Shareholder Disputes Across Litigation and Arbitration

Strategic Resolution of $20M Corporate Dispute and $8M+ Estate Succession Matter

Strategic Litigation Leadership in a $15M+ Corporate and Family Dispute

Securing a $2M+ Property Interest After an 8-Day Civil Trial

How We Work

What To Expect

Clear and Strategic Guidance

Transparent and well-informed advice is provided to help navigate your options and achieve the best possible outcome.

Proactive Client Engagement

Clients can expect consistent communication and dedicated attention to ensure their needs are fully understood and addressed.

Meticulous Attention to Details

Every detail is carefully considered, and strategic oversight is provided to guide clients toward a favorable resolution.

Experienced. Effective. Results-Oriented.

Emergency without-notice and ex parte injunctions sit at the most exacting edge of civil and commercial advocacy. They ask the court to intervene before the responding party has been heard, and for that reason they are governed by procedural discipline as much as by substantive entitlement. Rule 39.01(6) requires full and fair disclosure of all material facts on a motion brought without notice, and failure to meet that standard is itself sufficient ground to set aside the order. That duty is not ornamental. It is the price of asking the court to act on a one-sided record.

Substantively, the court still applies the familiar injunction framework from RJR-MacDonald: serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience. Where the order sought is mandatory in substance rather than merely prohibitory, Canadian Broadcasting Corp. requires a strong prima facie case at the first stage. In other words, the more intrusive the order, the stronger the merits showing the court expects. That distinction matters acutely in emergency practice, where counsel sometimes attempt to frame effectively mandatory relief as if it were merely preservative. Sophisticated judges do not rely on the label; they look to the substance of the order.

At ME Law, we act on urgent court order Ontario files involving threatened asset movement, title transfers, misuse of confidential information, destruction or concealment of evidence, shareholder and governance crises, lockout and possession disputes, and other cases where even short delay may change the case irreversibly. We also act on return-date and set-aside motions where the issue is not simply whether relief was urgent, but whether it was properly obtained and properly framed.

INJUNCTION LAWYERS YOU CAN RELY ON

We represent corporations, founders, principals, family offices, lenders, directors, investors, trustees, and high-net-worth parties in ex parte injunction Ontario proceedings where speed, discretion, and procedural exactness matter. Our team understands the strategic consequences of Rule 40 practice, including the limited life of without-notice orders in ordinary civil matters, the undertaking as to damages, the need for a carefully tailored draft order, and the reality that any temporary relief must be defensible when the other side appears.

Ex parte injunction litigation is not a side issue in serious business disputes. It is often the proceeding that determines whether assets remain traceable, whether evidence survives, whether a transaction closes, whether control shifts, or whether the eventual judgment retains practical force. That is why we do not treat emergency without-notice injunction Ontario work as theatrical urgency. We treat it as disciplined interim advocacy grounded in fairness, credibility, and enforceable relief.

Our Commitment
We approach every emergency injunction lawyer Toronto mandate with urgency, restraint, and strategic clarity. Where without-notice relief is truly necessary, we move decisively and present the court with a record that is complete, fair, and calibrated to the relief sought. Where such relief is unwarranted or overbroad, we respond immediately to vary, dissolve, or contain it. At ME Law, emergency ex parte relief is pursued or resisted with the precision expected in a serious equitable proceeding, not with improvisation. The Rules require full and fair disclosure on the initial motion, generally require an undertaking as to damages, and contemplate a prompt return to adversarial process.

With us on your side, without notice injunction Ontario strategy is built to work not only in the first hour, but at the first contested hearing that follows.

Emergency Asset-Freezing and Preservation Orders

Without-Notice Shareholder and Boardroom Crisis Injunctions

Ex Parte Real Estate Transfer and Title-Freeze Injunctions

Emergency Confidential Information and Trade Secret Restraint

Civil Search and Evidence-Preservation Relief

Third-Party Disclosure and Norwich Relief on an Urgent Basis

Mandatory Restoration and Access Orders

Commercial Lease Lockout and Possession Injunctions

Fraud, Dissipation-Risk, and Tracing-Driven Injunctions

Estate and Trust Asset Preservation Injunctions

Receivership and Insolvency Emergency Injunctions

Set-Aside, Variation, and Return-Date Defence of Ex Parte Orders

Clear Guidance. Strong Advocacy.

What we do:

Let us solve your legal issue

Years
Experience

0 +

Successful
Cases

0 +

Main Areas of
Specialization

0 +

Dedication to
Your Case

0 +

Reach out to us today

Frequently Asked Questions

Becoming a Client

View all faqs

How do I become a client of ME Law?

Becoming a client of ME Law begins with a complimentary intake call and proceeds through a conflict check, a formal consultation with a lawyer, and, if you decide to retain the firm and ME Law agrees to act, a written Retainer Agreement. Once the agreement is executed and the required retainer is received, ME Law opens the file and begins the agreed legal work.

The first step is the initial intake call. This is a preliminary conversation with an intake specialist, not the substantive legal consultation itself. The purpose is to understand the general nature of your matter, identify the type of dispute involved, gather preliminary information, and determine whether the matter falls within ME Law’s areas of practice.

At this stage, the firm is screening the matter so that the appropriate next step can be identified. If the matter appears to be one ME Law may be able to assist with, the process moves to a conflict check before detailed legal advice is provided.

If you want to understand why that step is required, see Why is a conflict check necessary before a consultation?.

The conflict check is conducted to determine whether ME Law has a professional conflict that would prevent the firm from acting. The process is governed by the Law Society of Ontario professional obligations and is intended to protect confidentiality, independence, and loyalty. You may be asked to identify the relevant parties so that those names can be checked against the firm’s records.

Once the conflict check is cleared, the next stage is a formal consultation with a lawyer. This is different from the preliminary intake call. The consultation is the substantive meeting in which the lawyer reviews your situation in more detail, answers questions, discusses preliminary legal options and strategy, and explains what the next steps may look like.

For a fuller explanation of the meeting itself, see What is a consultation at ME Law?.

The onboarding process can therefore be understood in five stages:

Initial intake call.
ME Law gathers preliminary information, identifies the nature of the matter, and determines whether it falls within the firm’s practice areas.
Conflict check.
The relevant party names are reviewed to determine whether a conflict of interest prevents ME Law from proceeding.
Consultation with a lawyer.
Once cleared, you meet with a lawyer, either in person or remotely, for a more detailed assessment of the matter and the legal options that may be available.
Retainer and engagement.
If you decide to proceed and ME Law agrees to take on the matter, the firm provides a Retainer Agreement setting out the scope of work, estimated costs, and billing structure. The scope is defined according to the work that is actually required rather than assumed to cover every possible step in the dispute.
File opening and legal work.
Once the Retainer Agreement is executed and the required retainer is received, the file is formally opened. The lawyer can then begin the agreed work, which may include developing a case strategy, drafting pleadings, engaging in negotiations, or preparing for court proceedings, depending on the mandate.

Becoming a client is therefore not the same thing as making an inquiry or completing an intake call. It also does not occur merely because a consultation has been booked. The formal engagement stage matters because it defines what ME Law has agreed to do, how the work will be billed, and what the client and firm should expect from the relationship.

The consultation is also where the proposed scope of the engagement can be discussed. Depending on the matter, that may involve advice on a defined issue through a limited-scope retainer or broader ongoing representation through a full-scope retainer. The appropriate structure depends on the record, complexity, procedural stage, and work required.

If your matter is urgent, explain that during the intake process so the firm can assess timing and lawyer availability. See How quickly can you schedule an initial consultation? for how consultation scheduling is handled after intake and conflict clearance.

ME Law’s onboarding process is designed to move from preliminary screening to conflict clearance, substantive legal assessment, and then a clearly defined engagement. The purpose is to ensure that the firm understands the matter, can act without a professional conflict, and has agreed with you on the scope of the work before substantive representation begins.

Contact ME Law to start the intake process and discuss whether your matter is one the firm may be able to assist with.

What are the typical steps from first contact to retaining ME Law?

The process typically moves through five stages: an initial intake call, a conflict check, a consultation with a lawyer, a formal Retainer Agreement, and then file opening and the start of the agreed legal work. Each stage has a different purpose, so contacting ME Law does not automatically mean that the firm has been retained.

1. Initial intake call

The process begins with a complimentary intake call. An intake specialist gathers preliminary information about the dispute, identifies the parties involved, and considers whether the matter falls within ME Law’s areas of practice.

This is an initial screening step rather than the substantive legal consultation. If you want the broader overview of becoming a client, see How do I become a client of ME Law?.

2. Conflict check

If the matter is potentially suitable for the firm, ME Law conducts a conflict check before moving into substantive discussions. Relevant party names are checked against the firm’s records to determine whether professional obligations prevent ME Law from acting.

For more detail on the purpose of this step, see Why is a conflict check necessary before a consultation?.

3. Consultation with a lawyer

Once the conflict check is cleared, a formal consultation can be scheduled. The consultation may take place in person or remotely and is the stage at which the lawyer reviews the matter in greater depth, discusses preliminary legal options and strategy, and considers what further work may be required.

This is distinct from the initial intake call. What is a consultation at ME Law? explains the scope of that substantive meeting in more detail.

4. Retainer and engagement

If you decide to proceed and ME Law agrees to accept the mandate, the firm provides a written Retainer Agreement. It identifies the agreed scope of work, billing structure, and other terms governing the engagement.

Depending on the matter, the engagement may be structured as a limited-scope retainer for defined work or as broader ongoing representation. The lawyer-client engagement begins according to the terms of the executed retainer rather than merely because an inquiry or consultation has taken place.

5. File opening and next steps

After the Retainer Agreement is executed and any required retainer funds are received, ME Law can formally open the file and begin the work within the agreed mandate.

Depending on the dispute, that work may include developing litigation strategy, reviewing evidence, drafting pleadings, engaging in negotiations, or preparing for proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The purpose of this staged process is to ensure that the matter is screened appropriately, conflicts are addressed, the legal issues are assessed, and both the client and ME Law understand the scope of the engagement before substantive representation begins.

Contact ME Law to begin the intake process.

What information do I need to provide for a conflict check after the initial call?

After the initial intake call, ME Law will ask you to identify the parties involved in your matter so the firm can complete a conflict check before receiving detailed confidential information or moving to a substantive consultation. The purpose at this stage is to establish who is involved, not to conduct a full review of your case.

The conflict check is part of ME Law’s intake and onboarding process. Before a lawyer can proceed with substantive discussions, the firm must determine whether it currently represents, previously represented, or holds confidential information relating to a party whose interests may conflict with yours.

ME Law’s conflict-check obligations arise under the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct and form part of the professional duties governing independence, loyalty, and confidentiality.

If you want a fuller explanation of the legal and ethical reason for this process, see Why is a conflict check necessary before a consultation?.

What should you provide?

At this stage, you should provide the names of the relevant parties involved in the dispute or proposed engagement. The objective is to give ME Law enough identifying information to run the appropriate check against its records.

Depending on the matter, there may be several parties whose involvement needs to be identified before the conflict check can be completed. The important point is to disclose the relevant party names accurately so the firm can determine whether a professional conflict exists.

You generally should not use the conflict-check stage to send a large volume of confidential documents or provide an extensive substantive account of the dispute before ME Law confirms that it is able to proceed. The conflict check comes before the detailed legal assessment.

The typical sequence is:

Initial intake call — ME Law gathers preliminary information about the nature of the matter.
Party identification — you provide the names required for the conflict check.
Conflict review — ME Law checks its records for potential professional conflicts.
Conflict clearance — if no conflict prevents the firm from proceeding, the matter can move to the next stage.
Consultation — detailed documents, facts, legal issues, strategy, and possible next steps can then be addressed through the substantive consultation process.

This distinction is important because completing a conflict-check form does not itself create a retainer or mean that ME Law has agreed to represent you. It is a preliminary professional safeguard within the intake process.

For the broader onboarding sequence, see How do I become a client of ME Law?. Once the conflict process is complete, What is a consultation at ME Law? explains what happens at the substantive legal assessment stage.

Contact ME Law to begin the intake process and provide the party information required for a conflict check.

What happens during the initial intake call with ME Law?

The initial intake call is a complimentary preliminary conversation with an ME Law intake specialist. Its purpose is to understand the general nature of your matter, gather the information needed to assess whether it falls within the firm’s areas of practice, identify the relevant parties, and determine the appropriate next step.

The intake call is different from a substantive consultation with a lawyer. At this stage, ME Law is not conducting a detailed review of your evidence or providing a full legal assessment. Instead, the firm is gathering enough preliminary information to determine whether the matter is one it may be able to assist with and what must happen before a consultation can proceed.

For an overview of the complete onboarding process, see How do I become a client of ME Law?.

During the initial intake process, you may be asked to explain:

the general nature of the dispute;
who the relevant parties are;
whether litigation or another legal proceeding has already started;
whether there are immediate deadlines or urgent circumstances;
what type of assistance you are seeking from ME Law.

Identifying the parties is particularly important because the next step will ordinarily involve a conflict check under the Law Society of Ontario’s professional-conduct requirements. ME Law must determine whether a professional conflict prevents the firm from proceeding before receiving detailed confidential information or moving into substantive legal discussions.

For the practical information required at that stage, see What information do I need to provide for a conflict check after the initial call?.

Once the conflict check is completed and the firm is able to proceed, a formal consultation with a lawyer can be scheduled. That consultation is where the matter can be examined in greater depth, including the factual record, legal issues, preliminary strategy, and possible next steps.

The distinction matters: an intake call, a conflict check, a substantive legal consultation, and a Retainer Agreement are separate stages of the client-onboarding process. Completing the intake call does not by itself mean that ME Law has agreed to act or that a lawyer-client retainer has been established.

If you want to know how quickly the substantive lawyer meeting can be arranged after intake and conflict clearance, see How quickly can you schedule an initial consultation?.

Contact ME Law to begin the intake process.