THE CANADIAN EMPLOYEE COMPETITION BLOG

Telus Communications Inc. v. Golberg, 2018 BCSC 1825 A battle between corporate titans Telus Communications and Rogers Media highlights the danger of “overzealous drafting” of restrictive covenants, which enabled a former Telus executive to compete against his former employer. At the same time, the Supreme Court of British Columbia rebukes…

961945 Alberta Ltd (Servicemaster of Edmonton Disaster Restoration) v Meyer, 2018 ABQB 564, 2018 ABQB 564 The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench holds that even where the evidence did not support an imbalance of bargaining power, the more rigorous approach to interpreting restrictive covenants was warranted in respect of a…

Jetco Heavy Duty Lighting v. Fonteyne, 2018 ABQB 345 The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench cautions against conflating a valuable employee with a fiduciary employee, given the onerous obligations placed on fiduciaries. The decision underscores the importance of securing a reasonable restrictive covenant if an employer wishes to protect its…

Ceridian Dayforce Corporation v. Daniel Wright (2017 ONSC 6763),853947 B.C. Ltd. v. Source Office Furniture & Systems Ltd. (2016 BCSC 2233) A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refusing to enforce a non-competition clause highlights the many ways in which the drafter of a restrictive covenant can go too…

Canada’s big five banks and the financial planning industry will benefit by paying close attention to the difference between a “loyalty incentive” and a restraint of trade, as canvassed thoroughly by the Ontario Superior Court in Levinsky v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2013 ONSC 5657. Levinsky, a managing director with TD Securities Inc.,…

One of the most-used strategies to argue that a non-compete or non-solicit provision is unenforceable is to point to any possible ambiguity in the wording used. In the leading Canadian decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held in J.G. Collins Insurance Agencies Ltd. v. Elsley Estate, 1978 CanLII 7 (SCC), that in order…

The B.C. Court of Appeal’ decision last year in Rhebergen v. Creston Veterinary Clinic, 2014 BCCA 97, is both a win and a loss for employers seeking to restrain employees from competing with them post-employment. In both instances, the decision will have long-reaching effects over employer’s strategies to implement effective restraints and the…

Does the forfeiture of a bonus for leaving an employer constitute a restraint of trade? This question was recently put to the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice in Levinsky v. TD Bank, 2012 ONSC 5110. The Court’s ultimate response may encourage more employers to require forfeiture or repayment of bonuses to incent…

As predicted earlier in this space, the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in Edward Jones v. Voldeng, 2012 BCCA 295, is making it very difficult to enforce a non-solicit agreement in B.C. on an interim basis pending trial. In Hub International v. Redcliffe, 2012 BCSC 1280, one of the first decisions to apply Edward Jones,…

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has raised the bar considerably for employers hoping to obtain an injunction to enforce a non-solicit clause pending trial. In Edward Jones v. Voldeng, 2012 BCCA 295, released July 3, 2012, the court held that Edward Jones, a securities firm that sought to enforce a six-month…