Alexander P. Torgov

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that an agreement with the respondent was not unconscionable and that he could not use a customer list to solicit clients after terminating their relationship.

The respondents cross-appealed the findings that a non-compete clause was unenforceable and that the appellant was not a fiduciary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on all issues.

The court awarded costs of $7,500 to the respondent.

The employer appealed a trial decision finding it lacked just cause to dismiss the employee for a single instance of poor judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the contextual approach from McKinley v. BC Tel.

The court also upheld the trial judge's assessment of the notice period, rejected the argument that subsequent dealings with the Unemployment Insurance Commission should reduce the notice period, and found no error in the costs award under Rule 49.10.