4 total
Motion for permanent injunction enforcing non-competition and confidentiality clauses dismissed due to overly broad terms.
The plaintiff brought a motion for a permanent injunction to enforce non-competition and confidentiality clauses against two former employees and their new employer.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for the non-competition breach because the businesses were not substantially similar and the clauses were overly broad and unenforceable.
Although there was a prima facie case of a minor confidentiality breach by one employee, the court found no irreparable harm and determined the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Respondent awarded $6,000 in costs after retaining 60% of a small claims judgment on appeal.
Following an appeal of a small claims court judgment where the respondent retained 60% of the original award, the parties made written submissions on costs.
The respondent sought $8,873.07 on a partial indemnity basis, while the appellants argued for their own costs due to divided success.
The court rejected the appellants' argument, noting their only success was on quantum, but reduced the respondent's costs to reflect her partial success.
The court awarded the respondent $6,000 in all-inclusive costs.
Wrongful dismissal finding upheld but reasonable notice period reduced from 21.5 to 13 weeks.
The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for wrongful dismissal, statutory holiday pay, and bad faith damages.
The defendants argued the plaintiff had abandoned her employment by failing to report to work after a heated dispute.
The Divisional Court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed, as the employer's actions created legitimate uncertainty about her employment status and the employer failed to clarify it.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the reasonable notice period from 21.5 weeks to 13 weeks based on a proper application of the Bardal factors.
Appeal of jury verdict dismissed as the finding of no liability was supported by evidence.
The appellants appealed a jury verdict finding the respondents not liable.
The appellants acknowledged the trial judge's charge to the jury was excellent but argued the verdict was unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury's verdict was amply supported by the evidence.
