A. Sinclair

The plaintiff, Humi Holdings Corporation, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent former employees and their new company from competing and using alleged confidential information to develop an embedded payroll software product.

The court admitted expert evidence from both sides.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the non-competition clauses were enforceable or breached, or that confidential information was misused.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favored the defendants.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff, a manager with 30 years of service, was summarily dismissed after slapping a female subordinate's buttocks in front of other male colleagues.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming the touching was accidental and a joke.

The court applied the McKinley contextual analysis and found that the plaintiff's conduct constituted serious sexual harassment.

The court held that the plaintiff's lack of remorse and failure to understand the seriousness of his actions irreparably breached the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed, with the court finding the employer had just cause for termination.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause following an incident involving a female co-worker.

The co-worker moved for leave to intervene in the action under Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to protect her moral and physical integrity, arguing that the plaintiff's version of events and cross-examination tactics threatened her reputation in the workplace.

The court granted the motion, finding that the co-worker had a legitimate interest in protecting her integrity and that her limited participation through counsel would not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings.