We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In the case of , the Ontario Court of Appeal recently confirmed
that the severance of ambiguous terms in a non-competition or
non-solicitation restrictive covenant will only be permitted on
rare occasions. In the 2009 Supreme Court of Canada decision in
KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. v. Shafron, the court
stated that severance of ambiguous restrictive covenants takes two
forms: (i) notional – the reading down of a contract term
to make it legal and enforceable; and (ii) blue pencil –
the removal of part of a contract term. The court confirmed that
blue pencil severance of an ambiguous restrictive covenant will
only be permitted where the portion being removed is trivial.
In the Veolia v. Brule decision, the court determined
that the parties to the non-competition covenant would not have
agreed to remove the words which were ambiguous, without varying
other terms of the covenant. Justice Hoy, writing for the court,
found that the ambiguous words were not trivial, as they went to
the duration of the restriction (one of the most important parts of
a non-competition covenant). As a result, the court overturned the
trial judge's finding that the non-competition covenant had
been breached.
This case is the latest in a long line of Canadian decisions which
make clear that restrictive covenants are not viewed favourably by
our courts and will generally be overturned other than in special
cases. If restrictive covenants are critical for your organization,
seek legal advice and try to ensure that there are no ambiguities
in the agreement, as the courts will not go out of their way to
help cure those ambiguities.
About Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC)
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
www.fmc-law.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in "Onex Corporation v. American Home Assurance Company", considers the obligations directors and officers have in notifying D&O insurers of circumstances which may give rise to a claim under a D&O policy.
The Quebec Court of Appeal in "Axa Assurances v. L.S." recently set the record straight on the threshold an insurer must achieve when declaring an insurance policy void.
On May 24, 2013, following an in-depth review of the regulatory capital framework for federally regulated Property & Casualty insurers, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions released a discussion paper.
In a recent decision by the Court of Appeal of Québec, the Honourable Jacques Chamberland, J.C.A. reviewed the application of exclusion clauses contained in a home insurance policy in the context of criminal activities.
In Branco v. American Home Assurance Co., Justice Acton of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench awarded a combined total of C$4.5-million in punitive damages against the two defendant insurers.
A discussion on a recent decision where it was held that an insurer must continue to defend its insured even after paying out the policy limits to the plaintiffs.
