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
The Court of Appeal ruled that the restrictive covenants found
in the asset purchase agreement were mistakenly interpreted by the
trial judge pursuant to the rules governing employment contracts as
set forth at Articles 2089 and 2095 of the Civil Code of
Quebec, and upheld the relevant clauses.
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence unequivocally showed
that the clauses were included for the benefit of the sellers, in
the context of the asset deal with Guay Inc., and not in respect of
the employment relationship.
Surprisingly, the court also declared that the said clauses
remained valid even though Mr. Payette's termination date was
used in order to calculate the duration of his
non‑competition and non‑solicitation
obligations, which did not affect the conclusion that the clauses
were included in the context of a business sale.
The important question in this case was to determine whether the
restrictive covenants were included as part of an employment
contract or business sale. Since Payette was dismissed without
cause, it would not have been possible to enforce the
non‑competition clause had it been part of an employment
contract.
In addition, the court affirmed that the parameters used in
restrictive covenants (duration, territory and targeted activities)
stay the same, whether they are found in employment contracts or
business sale contracts, although tribunals will be more flexible
in accepting such criteria in the latter case than the former.
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.
Employment, Labour and Immigration Law in Canada Preview 
