A Quebec Superior Court judge has denied McGill University’s request for an interlocutory injunction preventing excessive noise and obstruction of its buildings. The university also asked the court to grant the injunction to prevent intimidation, harassment or threatening of its students and staff. Judge Patrick Ferland said McGill failed to prove there would be harm if the injunction is not issued and that the injunction would restore a peaceful atmosphere on campus. The court document states McGill sought the injunction following protests on campus related to the war on Gaza and specifically targeted Students for Palestine’s Honour and Resistance (SPHR). The university and student union revoked the McGill name from the group in December 2023. The injunction would have prevented SPHR from blocking any entrances on the Lower Campus, making noise that disrupts classrooms, and harassing students and staff indefinitely. SPHR organized several protests to pressure McGill’s administration into cutting all ties with Israeli institutions and corporations, including occupying and blockading buildings and disrupting classes. A pro-Palestinian encampment spent nearly three months on the lawn of the university’s downtown campus in spring 2024. Two judges rejected provisional injunctions to have it removed. Ferland noted in his decision that though McGill’s latest request was supported by a number of Jewish student associations, several groups – including other Jewish student groups and labour unions at the university – opposed the injunction. They raised concerns about their ability to organize activities, especially as collective agreement negotiations are on the horizon, and argued the injunction would “have a substantial chilling effect on free speech on campus.” The injunction could apply to anyone on campus and beyond regardless of their intention or motivation. It could be used to prevent strike actions like picketing and any other form of protest, the unions argued. “While the Court deeply sympathizes with the concerns expressed by many members of the McGill community, an interlocutory injunction is an exceptional form of relief that may severely restrain individual liberty and lead to draconian consequences,” Ferland wrote. “An injunction cannot rest on hypothetical considerations: it is meant to respond to actual or imminent infringements of rights that are expected to cause serious or irreparable harm and that may only be prevented through the Court’s intervention.” Four provisional injunctions against SPHR were granted to the university over the last year. Ferland said there was no evidence that further SPHR protests and events are likely to take place. It Is also unclear who is behind the organization and what their intentions are, he wrote. The group – which is not a legal entity – has not posted on its social media since April 2025 and did not partake in the court proceedings. The judge added that McGill did not prove the injunction is warranted to combat the “current unhealthy atmosphere on campus.” He said though there was evidence of serious harassment and intimidation, the university did not demonstrate how an injunction would remedy tensions on campus. “This is not to deny the gravity of the illegal and intolerable events that took place last April or in the months that preceded. These have left deep and lasting wounds for many students, instructors and staff members,” Ferland said. “An injunction, however, is not a remedy that can be obtain as a precaution against events the likelihood of which has not been demonstrated. Nor is it meant to be a message broadcasted to the whole community to signify that certain acts will not be tolerated,” he added. SPHR could not be reached for comment. McGill University said it will review the decision before considering further steps.
