Marc A. J. Huneault

The plaintiff, Shaver-Kudell Manufacturing Inc. (SK), sued the defendants, Knight Manufacturing Inc. (KM), Lucy Shaver (a former long-term employee of SK), Dusko Ballmer (Lucy's common-law spouse and KM's consultant), and Alexander Knecht (KM's founder), for misappropriation of trade secrets related to its metal sleeve manufacturing process and tooling, and for breach of confidence regarding its customer list.

The court found that SK's manufacturing process and tooling were trade secrets, and that the defendants breached confidence and misappropriated these secrets.

Additionally, the court found that Lucy Shaver breached her duty of confidence and good faith by using her memorized knowledge of SK's customer list to solicit clients for KM shortly after leaving SK's employment.

The plaintiff estate moved to vary a prior order refusing leave to amend its statement of claim to add a breach of contract cause of action against a bank in relation to alleged misappropriation of funds from a structured settlement account.

The motion relied on purported “new evidence” arising from discovery indicating that no written banking agreement could be located.

The court held that the alleged evidence was not new and had been known to the plaintiff before the earlier motion was decided.

The proposed amendment continued to advance a new cause of action after the expiry of the limitation period and failed to meet the threshold for varying the prior order.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its claim for damages arising from an alleged breach of a settlement agreement related to engine repair work.

The appellant argued that the settlement required delivery of a completely rebuilt and reassembled engine and that the trial judge erred in excluding its former counsel as a witness and in finding no misrepresentation.

The court held that the Small Claims Court judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the appellant had constructive knowledge of the engine’s disassembled condition through its employee.

The appellate court also upheld the exclusion of counsel’s viva voce evidence for policy reasons relating to solicitor-client privilege and the proper role of counsel.

The appeal was dismissed.