A Saskatchewan court has recently enforced a non-competition
clause against a former sales employee of a radio station. The
court ordered an injunction that restrained the employee from
competing with his former employer in the City of Saskatoon and
within a 100-kilometre radius of the City of Saskatoon. The
injunction also restrained him from soliciting or aiding in the
solicitation of any of the radio station’s clients and using
any confidential information from the radio station.
In Rawlco Radio Ltd. v. Lozinski, 2012 SKQB 460, Rawlco
Radio station applied for an injunction against former employee Rob
Lozinski, whose job as “senior advertising consultant”
was to draw in advertising for one of Rawlco’s stations, Rock
102 FM. Lozinski left to work for a competitor, Harvard
Broadcasting, and its competing station, Wired 96.3 FM, after 10
years of employment.
The court found that Lozinski had learned Rawlco’s
marketing strategy and developed important personal contacts with
Rawlco’s clients over his many years and to many of these
clients, Lozinski was the face of the company. To allow him to
develop a similar strategy to obtain business in direct competition
with his former employer would result in major losses and
irreparable harm to the radio station. The non-competition clause
was therefore reasonable and an injunction was the appropriate
While this decision was made from the Saskatchewan Queen’s
Bench it relied upon Supreme Court cases that would be recognized
in Ontario. However, employers should note that non-compete clauses
are typically considered to be unreasonable restraints on trade and
unenforceable. In rare cases such as this where the non-compete was
enforced, the court found the clause to be drafted in a reasonable
and unambiguous way. Here, the court found that the 100-kilometre
boundary around Saskatoon and the six-month expiry period was a
reasonable restraint on Lozinski in order to protect Rawlco’s
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.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
On October 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal an Ontario Court of Appeal decision which ordered an employer to pay a former employee 37 months of salary and benefits following termination.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).