The Use of Injunctions to Repress Free Speech on Palestine

Over the past two and a half years, we’ve seen an unmistakable trend in private institutions, governments, organizations, and even private citizens seeking injunctions to stop or suppress solidarity actions related to Palestine.

What is an Injunction?

 An injunction is a court order requiring a person or organization to do something or to refrain from doing something. Injunctions are considered an extraordinary remedy because they are discretionary and can significantly affect a party's rights and conduct. Unlike an award of damages, an injunction is intended to prevent harm or to require action.

 Injunctions may be prohibitory (ordering a party not to do something) or mandatory (ordering a party to do something). Injunctions can be granted on either an interlocutory basis, as a temporary measure before the case is finally decided, or on a permanent (final) basis after the court has determined the parties' rights at trial.

•  Interlocutory (or Temporary) Injunctions:

Interlocutory injunctions are temporary court orders granted before trial to prevent harm while a case is being decided. Under the RJR-MacDonald test, the applicant must show: (1) a serious issue to be tried; (2) irreparable harm if the injunction is refused; and (3) that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. Because injunctions are discretionary and can significantly affect the parties before the merits are decided, courts grant them cautiously.

•  Permanent (or Final) Injunctions:

A permanent injunction requires a party to do something (or stop doing something) for an indefinite duration. Before issuing a permanent injunction, the court will consider all the evidence and decide the merits of the case. The question here is no longer whether there is a "serious issue" to be tried, but rather whether the successful party has proven a legal right that warrants injunctive relief and/or money damages. While an interlocutory injunction preserves the status quo so the court can consider the live legal issues, a permanent injunction enforces rights after the court has reached its final conclusions.

 How have injunctions been used?

 While the recent flurry of injunctions against the Palestine solidarity movement may feel novel, injunctions are not. Examples of state and corporate interests seeking injunctions or ex-parte orders against Indigenous land defenders and labour activists are rife in Canada’s history. More recently, municipalities have sought injunctions to clear encampments of the unhoused.

Following the events of October 2023 and the outpouring of public support for Palestinians, attempts to use injunctions to halt Pro-Palestine solidarity activities began to appear.

One of the first examples the Centre recorded took place in early 2024, when the pro-Israel lobby group B’nai Brith requested an injunction to prevent Palestine solidarity protests and banner drops on an overpass in North York in the Toronto metro area. While the injunction was dismissed by the Court, the Court’s reasoning was that police had already banned demonstrations on the overpass, which did not illuminate much about how injunction requests would be seen by the Court in the future.

In the spring of 2024, Palestine solidarity encampments began to appear on university campuses in Canada. Soon after, we saw a wave of injunction requests from universities to remove the encampments, including from the University of Toronto (UofT). While the injunction requested by the UofT was ultimately granted, it set precedent for a nuanced legal perspective on the encampments.

The UofT alleged in their application that the encampment on its grounds was violent, associated with antisemitic language and slogans, and had appropriated university property. The Court granted the injunction on the grounds that the protesters had indeed appropriated university property, but rejected UofT’s claims that the encampment was violent or antisemitic. Importantly, the Court stated that it could not find the slogan, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” was inherently antisemitic.

In November 2025, a pro-Israel organization, Tafsik, sought an interlocutory injunction to halt the raising of the Palestinian flag on the City of Toronto’s City Hall courtesy flag pole, in line with Toronto’s established flag raising policy which allows the flags of countries to be raised upon request. Tafsik failed on all three branches of the test required to prove its case for the injunction.

 Importantly, the Court found that there was no irreparable harm to the Jewish community in raising the flag, and in fact, not raising the Palestinian flag would have actually caused irreparable harm to the Palestinian community by denying it access to a public resource that's available to other groups. Another key precedent set in the decision was the affirmation of the Court that Canada had recognized the Palestinian state, marking the first time that the Palestinian state had received any judicial attention. 

 Most recently, the Ontario provincial government launched a last-minute application for an injunction to stop the annual Al-Quds Day march in Toronto, arguing that the event would cause violence. This too was dismissed. The Court took note that there had been no incidents of criminality or public nuisance in the march’s history. The Court affirmed the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and noted that a civil injunction cannot properly be used to restrain speculative and anticipated criminal code offenses.

What can we make of this?

 While the Court has largely dismissed injunctions that challenge the right to expression and assembly in public areas, whether the Court understands Charter rights to apply as liberally to universities is as of yet uncertain. We currently have a situation where we have conflicting jurisprudence from different jurisdictions.

 For example, the Court of Appeal for Alberta has ruled in a couple of cases that to the extent that universities regulate speech, that triggers the applicability of Section 2 of the Charter. At the same time, we have a precedent from 2012 from the Ontario Court of Appeal, Lobo, essentially saying the opposite. However, the Ford government has legislated regulations that are applicable to the universities, fundamentally changing the dynamics and the underlying structure that was being considered in Lobo. This issue requires further litigation and perhaps escalation to the Supreme Court to clarify.

 Regardless of the patterns we observe in different jurisdictions, it is clear that we must, as a movement for civil liberties and human rights, confront these attempts to repress advocacy for Palestine wherever they occur. We cannot presume that the Court will find these requests without merit– it is thus critical for the legal profession to stay connected to students and the broader solidarity movement, and organize for the rapid deployment of legal resources.

This article is a companion piece to The Legal Centre for Palestine and The Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association’s April 2026 webinar on Injunctions.