Gary E. Flaxbard

The appellant travel agency appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of confidential information, and inducing breach of contract against a former employee and her new employer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the restrictive covenant, which prohibited the employee from soliciting 'or accepting business' from the appellant's clients, was an unenforceable non-competition clause due to its broad wording and lack of a temporal limitation.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the misappropriation of confidential information.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants were successful on a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff argued each party should bear its own costs because the defendants could have brought their motions earlier and the action was novel.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the action lacked merit and was not novel in a way that would displace the usual costs rules.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing Murphy's costs at $37,760.38 and Goliger's costs at $46,911.91.

The plaintiff travel agency sued a former employee and her new employer for breach of a restrictive covenant, misappropriation of confidential information, and inducing breach of contract.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found the restrictive covenant was an overly broad and unenforceable non-competition clause, as it lacked temporal limits and restricted accepting business from any of the plaintiff's clients.

The court also dismissed the claims for inducing breach of contract and breach of confidence, finding no enforceable contract existed and the information shared by the employee did not possess the requisite quality of confidence.

The defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted and the action was dismissed.

Following an unsuccessful motion by the plaintiff to compel answers to questions refused at an examination for discovery, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party argued that costs should be in the cause, but the court rejected that position.

The responding party had been entirely successful on the motion and was therefore entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court found the responding party’s bill of costs reasonable and ordered payment forthwith.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The insurer terminated the benefits and the parties signed a release.

The applicant later applied for arbitration, arguing the release was ineffective and the termination notice was invalid.

The arbitrator found that the release did not meet the regulatory requirements and was therefore not a full and final settlement.

Furthermore, the termination notice did not constitute a valid refusal under the Smith test because it failed to adequately inform the applicant of the dispute resolution process.

As a result, the limitation period never commenced, and the applicant's claim was not time-barred.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitration decision finding that monthly benefits received by the respondent under a private disability insurance policy were not deductible from income replacement benefits and loss of earning capacity benefits payable under the SABS-1994.

The Director's Delegate reviewed the history of the deductibility of collateral benefits and concluded that the private disability benefits were not 'payments for loss of income' under an 'income continuation plan' within the meaning of section 75(1) of the SABS-1994.

The appeal was dismissed.