Puneet Tiwari

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses against a former investment advisor.

The defendant had previously sold his business to the plaintiff's parent company and signed an employment agreement containing the restrictive covenants.

After resigning, the defendant allegedly solicited clients and employees to join him at a competing firm, and breached an interim injunction by contacting clients.

The court found a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were valid and breached, and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The plaintiff employee was laid off in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and brought a motion for summary judgment claiming constructive dismissal.

The defendant employer argued the layoff was an Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL) under the Employment Standards Act, which negated the claim.

The court found that while the layoff qualified as an IDEL, the regulation did not preclude a common law claim for constructive dismissal.

Finding no implied term in the employment contract permitting a unilateral layoff and no condonation by the employee, the court held the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and awarded 15 months' notice.

Following a previous decision, the parties reached an agreement on the costs of the motion.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The plaintiff employers brought an urgent motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from disclosing confidential information, soliciting clients, and competing with their live events business.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any potential damages could be quantified and compensated financially.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendant, as an injunction would prevent him from earning a livelihood in his chosen field.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to a full hearing on a complete record.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal case.

While the plaintiff obtained judgment, the awarded damages were a small fraction of the claim, and the defence was largely successful in limiting the award.

The court noted that both parties claimed victory and sought costs.

The judge found that both sides pursued claims or maintained defences beyond a reasonable prospect of success, hindering constructive settlement discussions and adding to litigation expense.

Given the divided success, the court declined to award costs to either party.

On a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the court held that a 56-year-old sales employee with just under 28 months of service was entitled to three months' reasonable notice.

Applying the Bardal framework, the court considered the employee's age, the relative brevity of service, and the uncertain job market at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, but declined to extend notice to six months.

The court further held that CERB payments were not deductible from damages on the facts.

The employee was entitled to damages reflecting base salary, car allowance, and commissions on prior sales that would have become earned and payable during the notice period, together with certain additional benefits to be quantified if not agreed.