Ranjan K. Agarwal

The applicant sought a declaration that non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements he signed with the respondents were unenforceable as an illegal restraint of trade.

The court found that the covenants were connected to a commercial sale transaction rather than just an employment contract, and therefore subject to a less rigorous standard of reasonableness.

The court concluded that the covenants were unambiguous, protected a legitimate business interest, and were reasonable in their scope, territory, and duration.

The application was dismissed.

An employee of the appellant hospital defrauded his employer by causing it to issue cheques to a made-up entity for services never rendered.

The cheques were deposited by an accomplice at the respondent bank.

The hospital sued the bank for conversion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the made-up entity was a 'non-existing person' under s. 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act, which allowed the bank to treat the cheques as payable to bearer and provided a complete defence to the conversion claim.

The appellants, organizations promoting traditional conceptions of morality, sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application challenging the constitutionality of prostitution provisions in the Criminal Code.

The motion judge dismissed their motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred, noting the appellants had a real, substantial, and identifiable interest and an important perspective distinct from the parties.

The appeal was allowed and the motion to intervene was granted.

The applicant, an intervener in the court below, brought a motion to be added as a party under Rule 18(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to seek leave to appeal.

The underlying judgment declared that a child could have three parents.

None of the original parties or the Attorney General sought to appeal the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion, holding that the applicant lacked a specific personal interest in the outcome of the litigation and failed to meet the test for public interest standing.