SCC to hear Quebec case on impact of sale of business, wrongful dismissal on enforceability of non-compete
The Supreme Court of Canada announced today that it will hear the appeal in Yannick Payette, Mammoet Canada Eastern Ltd., successor to Mammoet Crane Inc. v. Guay inc. (Que. C.A., Dec. 12, 2011) (34662).
As set out in the Court's summary, the key issue on appeal is whether the Quebec Court of Appeal erred in applying a non-competition clause despite the broad scope of the clause and the wrongful termination of employment relationship in light of the Civil Code regime.
By way of background, the Court's summary states: read more »
Advertisement in trade magazine, launching of website establish prima facie breach of non-solicit agreement
In Hub International (Richmond Auto Mall) Ltd. v. Mendham, 2011 BCSC 1780, the BC Supreme Court found that a former employee's advertisement for his new marine insurance company in a trade magazine and the launching of his new company's website established a prima facie breach of the non-solicit agreement he had entered into with his former employer, Hub International.
Specifically, the court stated: read more »
Lus Laboris has published a guide entitled, "Non-Compete Clauses: An International Guide" (May 2010).
As set out on their website , the lus Laboris alliance is comprised of member law firms in 42 countries, with coverage in more than 100 countries. Its specialisms include: individual employment contracts; collective redundancies; discrimination; expatriation; restructuring; compensation, benefits and tax; pensions; collective bargaining; workplace policies and handbooks; litigation and dispute resolution; and corporate social responsibility.
The Lus Laboris website describes the guide as follows: read more »
ONCA allows appeal, grants declaration that restrictive covenant is unreasonable and therefore unenforceable
In Mason v. Chem-Trend Limited Partnership, 2011 ONCA 344, the Ontario Court of appeal overturned the application judge's decision and ruled that the following restrictive covenant was unreasonable and therefore unenforceable against a 17 year technical salesperson whose employment was terminated for just cause:
I agree that if my employment is terminated for any reason by me or by the Company, I will not, for a period of one year following the termination, directly or indirectly, for my own account or as an employee or agent of any business entity, engage in any business or activity in competition with the Company by providing services or products to, or soliciting business from, any business entity which was a customer of the Company during the period in which I was an employee of the Company, or take any action that will cause the termination of the business relationship between the Company and any customer, or solicit for employment any person employed by the Company.
Employee-shareholder dismissed for cause awarded damages for improper invocation of Shareholders' Agreement
In Link v. Venture Steel Inc. and Ruben Rivas, 2010 ONCA 144 the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a decision in which a former Vice-President of Sales was awarded more than $4 million in damages, most of which related to company shares the employer had improperly purchased, pursuant to a Shareholders' Agreement, at the time it dismissed the employee for just cause.
The case also addressed the issue of how non-competition and non-solicitation provisions in a Shareholders Agreement will impact on a court's analysis of whether an employee's mitigation efforts were reasonable.
Lawyers at Fasken Martineau has prepared a summary of the case ("Beware the Perils of Firing Employee-Shareholders", June 22, 2010) that can be found here.