Skip to Content


Discoveries must occur before defendants get particulars of claim involving confidential info, breach of fiduciary duty

Jurisdiction: - British Columbia

Mr. McKay resigned from the plaintiff VSM in September 2007 after 19 years of employment.

Before leaving VSM, he signed a release in which he acknowledged that he owed a fiduciary duty to VSM and that VSM would suffer irreparable harm if its confidential or unique information was disclosed without authorization.

Mr. McKay then commenced employment with VSM's competitor, Elekta.

VSM subsequently sued Mr. McKay and Elekta, alleging that they conspired to use confidential information to obtain an unfair competitive advantage and that Mr. McKay breached his fiduciary duty.

In response to the 54-paragraph Statement of Claim, the defendants filed a one paragraph Statement of Defence and then brought a motion seeking "particulars" of the claim. The Defendants' position was that they needed the particulars to file a responsive Defence and to delineate the issues at trial.

The court, agreeing with the plaintiff, ruled that the defendants' motion should be adjourned until the plaintiffs had conducted its Examinations for Discovery. If the defendants still wanted particulars at that time, they would be at liberty to re-apply.  read more »

Appeal Court finds outsourcing did not trigger severance provisions in Ontario's Employment Standards Act

Jurisdiction: - Ontario

In Abbott v. Bombardier Inc., 2007 ONCA 233, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that an outsourcing situation did not trigger the severance pay provisions in the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000.

In doing so, the court upheld the decision of the motion judge (2005 CanLII 63771 (ON S.C.)). The motion judge had determined that:  read more »

The legal standard for dismissal of a probationary employee

Jurisdiction: - British Columbia
Sector: - Manufacturing

What is the standard for dismissal of a probationary employee? In Jadot v. Concert Industries Ltd., 1997 CanLII 4137 (BC C.A.), the BC Court of Appeal made the following observations:

The standard for dismissal of a regular employee is just cause; for a probationary employee the standard is suitability: see Pathak v. Royal Bank, 1996 CanLII 2130 (BC C.A.)...In this case, Concert Industries dismissed the appellant because its officers concluded that the appellant was not a suitable candidate for long-term employment.  read more »

Can an employee sue both the vendor and the purchaser of a business for wrongful dismissal?

Jurisdiction: - British Columbia
Sector: - High Tech - Manufacturing

In a recent case the B.C. Court of Appeal confirmed that an employee can sue both the Vendor and Purchaser of a business for wrongful dismissal where he/she has been dismissed after the sale of the business. Specifically, the law is:  read more »

Payment made to individual for non-compete in context of share purchase transaction not subject to income tax

Sector: - Manufacturing

In Manrell v. The Queen, 2003 FCA 128, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that a payment made to an individual for a personal non-compete restriction in the context of share purchase transaction was not subject to income tax.

This Tax Update ("Court says Non-Compete Payment is Non-Taxable") by lawyers at Davis & Company discusses the decision.

BC Supreme Court certifies wrongful dismissal class action

Jurisdiction: - British Columbia

In Gregg v. Freightliner Ltd., 2003 BCSC 241, the BC Supreme Court certified a wrongful dismissal class action proceeding. There are approximately 200 employees in the class. The court certified the following six common issues to be tried:  read more »