The appellant sold his insurance agency and subsequently entered into a series of employment contracts with the purchaser.
The contracts contained a restrictive covenant preventing him from working in the insurance brokerage business within the 'Metropolitan City of Vancouver' for three years after leaving.
When the appellant left to work for another agency in Richmond, the respondent sued to enforce the covenant.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the term 'Metropolitan City of Vancouver' was ambiguous and therefore prima facie unreasonable.
The Court ruled that notional severance cannot be applied to cure an ambiguous or unreasonable restrictive covenant in an employment contract.
Blue-pencil severance and rectification were also found inapplicable.
The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.
