3 total
Action against departing chef dismissed; restrictive covenants unenforceable and menus not confidential.
The plaintiff catering company sued its former executive chef and a daycare customer after the chef resigned to work directly for the daycare, moving its meal program onsite.
The plaintiff alleged the chef misappropriated confidential information, including menus and pricing, and breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.
The plaintiff also alleged the defendants intentionally destroyed electronic evidence.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action in its entirety.
The court found the menus and processes were not confidential, the restrictive covenants were overly broad and unenforceable, the employee was not a fiduciary, and the defendants did not engage in spoliation of evidence.
The court also gave no weight to the plaintiff's electronic evidence due to a lack of forensic preservation.
Arbitrator's dismissal of grievance as abuse of process set aside for unreasonableness and procedural unfairness.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing a 2021 group grievance as an abuse of process.
The arbitrator had concluded the grievance was identical in substance to a 2017 grievance that was settled by a consent award.
In doing so, the arbitrator relied on her own notes and recollections from the without-prejudice mediation of the 2017 grievance, without notice to the union.
The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable as she failed to analyze the actual settlement agreement to determine if the union had impliedly accepted the employer's position.
The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.
Summary hearing to dismiss discrimination application regarding taxi service refusal denied; matter to proceed.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, claiming a taxi driver refused him service due to his certified service dog.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's allegations as true, there was some evidence reasonably available that could support the allegations of discrimination.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed that it proceed to a two-day hearing to determine liability, including whether the respondent taxi company is vicariously liable for the driver's actions.
