Ellen Low

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from soliciting and doing business with its existing customers.

The employee had resigned and started a competing business selling similar products.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, noting the employee was not a fiduciary and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The balance of convenience favoured the employee, as the injunction would deprive him of his primary ability to earn a living.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondents' counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The conflict arose when a lawyer who had previously worked on the applicant's file at her counsel's firm moved to the firm representing the respondents.

Applying the test from MacDonald Estate, the Tribunal found that while the lawyer likely received confidential information, the respondents' new firm had implemented adequate and timely screening measures to prevent disclosure.

The motion to remove counsel was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory reduction of hours after returning from medical leave.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add the directing mind of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent, noting the corporate respondent may have no assets.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' requests to dismiss the application for mootness, to dismiss it under s. 45.1 of the Code based on a prior Employment Standards Officer decision regarding severance pay, and to hold a summary hearing.

The issue of whether the application was filed in time under s. 34 of the Code was deferred to the main hearing.