Audrey Doxtdator

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision concerning the enforceability of a non-competition covenant in an employment agreement.

The appellant employer sought to enforce the covenant against a former employee, a pharmacist, who left to work at a competing pharmacy.

The application judge found the covenant unenforceable due to ambiguity and overbreadth.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, affirming that the covenant's broad wording, which prohibited the employee from being "concerned with" or "interested in" any similar business, extended beyond what was reasonably required to protect the employer's legitimate interests.

The court reiterated that it cannot rewrite an unreasonable restrictive covenant.

The applicant pharmacy owner sought a declaration and injunction to enforce a non-competition clause against a former pharmacist employee who resigned and began working at a nearby pharmacy.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the non-competition clause was unenforceable because its description of prohibited activities was both ambiguous and overly broad, extending beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect the employer's proprietary interests.

The plaintiff moved for urgent injunctive relief against his neighbours, the defendants, alleging their excavation activities encroached on his lands and caused flooding.

The court granted an interim interim injunction enjoining the defendants from trespassing and ordering them to permit the plaintiff's expert access to their property to conduct investigations.

The court declined to enjoin the defendants from conducting further landscaping on their own lands, finding no evidence of irreparable harm.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs on consent.