The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim arising from alleged breach of a non‑competition agreement and related fiduciary duties, or alternatively partial summary judgment limiting damages.
The dispute involved whether the defendant employee had signed a non‑competition agreement, whether such an agreement would be enforceable without explicit geographic or activity limits, and whether the defendant owed fiduciary duties to the plaintiff.
The court found that significant factual disputes and credibility issues, including allegations the defendant competed with the plaintiff while still employed and interfered with a business relationship, required a full trial.
Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.
The motion was dismissed except that the defendants were granted leave to amend their statement of defence.
