Patricia J. Forte

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.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that while the original civil claim overlapped with the application, the applicant had amended the statement of claim to remove all allegations of human rights infringements and requests for human rights remedies.

Because the amended civil action only sought damages for a breach of the common law reasonable notice period, the Tribunal concluded that section 34(11) did not apply and denied the request to dismiss.

The appellants appealed a decision of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellants failed to disclose a defence on the merits.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment dismissing its counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred by reversing the onus of proof on a motion for summary judgment and by failing to apply the 'plain and obvious' test when treating the motion as one brought under Rule 21.01(1).

The respondents had failed to file evidence addressing the appellant's allegations, and the counterclaim was not destined to fail.

The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident in California and settled with the at-fault driver for the policy limits.

They then sued their own insurer in Ontario under the OPCF 44 Family Protection Coverage endorsement for their excess losses.

The insurer argued that Ontario's no-fault provisions (ss. 267.1 and 267.2 of the Insurance Act) applied to limit the claim, characterizing them as issues of 'quantum' under the policy.

The Court of Appeal held that the statutory provisions relate to 'liability', not 'quantum', and therefore the substantive law of California governed the liability issues.

The insurer's appeal was dismissed.