D. O’Connor

The plaintiff employers brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against a former executive who resigned to join a competitor.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality clauses, and alleged the former employee misused confidential information by wiping a company laptop and using a USB device before returning it.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were enforceable, as they lacked a proprietary interest and the clauses were overly broad and ambiguous.

The court also found no serious issue to be tried regarding the misuse of confidential information, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the employee.

Following dismissal of two applications involving a dispute between dental professional corporations and issues arising from arbitration decisions and lease forfeiture, the court determined costs.

The applicant had sought leave to appeal arbitral decisions and relief from forfeiture of a lease but was unsuccessful.

The court applied Rule 57 and proportionality principles in fixing fair and reasonable costs rather than simply awarding actual costs incurred.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondent corporation for both applications, while the landlord respondent received substantial indemnity costs due to contractual indemnification provisions and the applicant’s conduct in unnecessarily involving the landlord.

Costs were fixed with reductions to claimed hours where the court found the time excessive.