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
On February 22, 2012, the Superior Court issued orders against two
employees and a competitor in a matter involving unfair
competition.
The plaintiff, who in this particular case was the employer,
obtained a safeguard order against two former employees and their
new employer, a competing company, which stops them from using
confidential information which they had illegally obtained while
the two employees were employed by the plaintiff, and which
prohibits them from competing for a reasonable period of time.
The Honourable Justice Chaput granted the requested orders based
on the principles of unfair competition and the duty of loyalty
provided for at Article 2088 of the Civil Code of
Quebec.
In addition to their request for a non‑solicitation
order, the plaintiff also requested access to the defendant's
computers and email accounts by a forensic computer analyst, in
order to identify information and confidential documents belonging
to them. The judge granted this order, giving legal representatives
access to documents on an "attorney's eyes only"
basis.
The granting of such an order is an attractive solution to
protect confidential information which may have been transferred
electronically to a competing company. In view of the proliferation
of information resulting from the use of new technologies, there is
a need for appropriate and contemporary orders such as those issued
by the Honourable Justice Chaput.
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.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently weighed in to reconcile competing tests on the proper way to determine whether an individual is a contractor or truly an employee.
A discussion on a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirms that the central question is, whether the person is performing the services as his own business, on his own account.
Back in July 2012, we covered "PVYW v Comcare" (No 2), [2012] FCA 395, which concerned an employee in the HR department of an Australian government agency who was injured on a work-related trip to a country town in New South Wales.
The employee, Ashworth, alleged that the manager demanded that she close the door and then positioned herself in front of the closed door and started screaming and pointing her finger in the employee’s face.
Some organizations subscribe to the close your eyes and think good thoughts school of drafting, when it comes to non-competition agreements in employment contracts.
A discussion on the judicial decision in a recent case, where a BC employer has successfully defended a claim for constructive dismissal despite taking away supervisory duties and moving the employee from an office to a cubicle.
Gowlings - Course Aux Stages : Olivier Therrien (Video Content)
