Canada: The Duties Of Departing Employees: Are They On The Move?

Last Updated: April 2 2007
Article by Gary Clarke

Case Comment: Rbc Dominion Securities Inc. V. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. Et Al., (2007) Bcca 22.

Recently, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released its decision in RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. et al. This decision, if not successfully appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, will have a significant impact on the duties and obligations (or the lack thereof) that departing employees will owe to their employers in the financial services sector, particularly investment brokerages. The case may also have an important impact on the duties and obligations of departing employees generally and for that reason, carefully attention must be paid to it by employers and employees alike in the event of a departure or planned departure.

The case arose after a group of employees in Cranbrook, British Columbia (with a satellite office in Nelson) left their employment with RBC to join Merrill Lynch. Some of these employees were investment advisors, one was the Branch Manager and others were assistants. As a group, they constituted the entire branch and planned to leave RBC en masse. In advance of their departure, they took confidential client information to their future employer, Merrill Lynch, to have it copied before they left RBC. Once at Merrill Lynch they resumed their business and continued to service most of the clients they worked for while at RBC. RBC’s business in the Cranbrook/Nelson area was significantly damaged as a result.

RBC sued. The issues of liability and damages were heard separately. The first judgment found liability on the part of the departing employees and Merrill Lynch. The second judgment awarded significant compensatory damages (over $2,000,000) together with punitive damages of $265,000 (for their misconduct in transmitting the confidential client information to Merrill Lynch prior to leaving their employment with RBC).

The departed employees and Merrill Lynch appealed the second judgment on damages. The first judgment, which determined liability, was not appealed. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of liability (i.e., whether the employees were entitled to take a client list or had a duty to compete fairly with RBC after they had left). Since the appeal was only taken on damages, the Court’s exploration of the issues of liability raises the concern that the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider these issues.

Madam Justice Southin, writing for the majority (Chief Justice Finch concurring), reduced the compensatory damage award to $40,000 (for loss of profits during the notice period) but maintained the punitive damages award on the basis of the wrongful conduct on the part of the defendants in obtaining the client information while the departing employees were still employed by RBC. The driving force behind maintaining the punitive damages award seems to have been less about the employees’ breach of their duty of fidelity to their employer and more about the interests of the clients. In the course of its judgment, the Court:

(a) remarked that it had been left with the "uneasy impression" that RBC had been more "concerned with its own bottom line than it was with its clients being able, without interruption, to consult with and give instructions to their respective advisors";

(b) found that clients are entitled to know "immediately upon [their] advisor leaving one firm for another where th[e] advisor has gone so that [they] can decide whether to change to the new firm or remain with the old"; and

(c) found that the departing employees could take lists of their clients rather than resort to their memory for their contact information and this was characterized as not putting "the interests of the brokerage house...ahead of the interests of the clients.".

Again, notwithstanding the fact that the trial judge’s findings on liability had not been appealed, the Court expressed concern with the notion that an employee has a legal duty not to compete unfairly with his or her employer after the employment relationship has ended. In the second judgment, the trial judge had concluded that none of the employees owed a fiduciary duty to RBC. This finding was significant for two reasons. First, had one of them been found to be a fiduciary, all of the employees would have been considered fiduciaries at law. Second, this finding arguably limits the application of this decision to cases dealing with "mere employees" as opposed to those who owe a fiduciary duty to their employers. While the Court held that the employees in this case did not owe their employer a duty to compete fairly post-termination, because they were clearly held not to be fiduciaries, the application of this finding to fiduciaries would presumably be a stretch.

This "duty not to compete unfairly", the Court noted, appeared to have originated from cases such as the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s often quoted 1999 decision in Barton Insurance Brokers Ltd. v. Irwin. The Court quoted the following passage from Barton:

"It must, of course, be observed that the problem presented in this case is a rather different one from the one referred to in the cases mentioned above, cases concerning the enforceability of covenants. There was no covenant in this case. However, from that field of the law came the development of the area we are here concerned with: namely, the duties of an employee to a former employer. Absent any express contractual terms, the law has developed to provide that a former employee will not be at liberty to act in an unfair way to a former employer. Whether it be called a fiduciary duty, a duty of good faith or a duty of confidence, the theme running through this whole area of the law is that in appropriate circumstances, a former employee may be found to have breached an enforceable duty owed to a former employer and may be successfully sued for injunctive relief or for damages."

Clearly, an employee has duties to a present employer not to divulge trade secrets or to work against the interests of his or her employer but the duty is not just limited to current employment. After leaving employment, an employee may be obligated not to pursue certain activities to the detriment of the former employer. For instance, it has been usually reckoned to be unfair conduct to permit a former employee to take with him or her customer lists to use for solicitation of business or to divulge trade secrets or to seek to appropriate maturing business opportunities of the former employer. On the other hand, I suppose to avoid what might otherwise be a condition of almost involuntary servitude, it has long been held that an employee is free to compete for custom with a former employer. As usual in human affairs, the difficulty is in the details and it is often difficult to know where to draw the line." [Emphasis added]

To avoid the impact of this passage, the Court in RBC:

(a) noted that it was obiter dicta (an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of Barton) and was therefore not binding upon it; and

(b) that statements by judges are not to treated as if enacted by statute or be considered "hard and fast rules".

In concluding that there was "no such thing" as an obligation or duty not to compete "unfairly", the Court stated that:

"Such a broad open-ended legal duty, whether treated as an implied term of a contract of service or as some obligation outside the contract but imposed by law, would be dependent for its scope on the length of any particular judge’s foot. To put it another way, the allegation in paragraph 28 of the statement of claim, which is echoed in paragraphs 33 and 34, does not assert an ingredient of any cause of action known to me.

This is not the place to engage in a disquisition on the general principles of implication of terms. But if each of these servants had been asked on entering into the service of DS, "If you leave our employ, do you promise not to compete unfairly?" would he or she have answered, "of course"? I think not. I think, at least if he or she were intelligent, the response would have been, "What does that mean? I have to make a living."

To the extent, therefore, that the judgment below is founded upon an implied obligation not to compete "unfairly", it cannot be sustained. As, in my opinion, that concept loomed large in the learned judge’s approach to the issues, its rejection puts in doubt the validity of all the learned judge’s ultimate conclusions."

It follows then that a mere employee (not a fiduciary), does not have a duty to compete fairly with his or her employer post-employment. This outcome is not surprising because previous decisions that have made reference to this so-called duty to compete fairly have typically arisen in cases where the employee in question was a fiduciary and therefore required to compete with their previous employer fairly (unless competition was otherwise restrained by an agreement between the parties). The determination of whether or not the employee had competed "fairly" often looked at such things as whether the employee had misused confidential information, appropriated business opportunities or solicited clients and employees.

While it could also be argued that a fiduciary also does not have such a duty given the Court’s treatment of the aforementioned passage from Barton, this seems to go too far given that the trial judge (in her first judgment on liability) concluded that none of the employees were fiduciaries.

The fact that RBC did not require the employees to execute non-competition and non-solicitation provisions appeared to be of significance to the Court. One is left with the impression that the Court felt that RBC had "made its bed" by not doing so and could not complain in the absence of ensuring such covenants were in place. This is a slightly ironic outcome given that the courts have historically treated non-competition covenants as unenforceable restraints of trade, saved only by evidence of their reasonableness in terms of geographic scope and duration as well as the reasonable and legitimate business interest such covenants are aimed at protecting. This decision may breath new life into the use of such covenants and employers looking to restrain the activities of employees, especially "mere employees", will likely pay closer attention to the use of contractual restraints to protect their legitimate business interests.

Additional findings of interest include:

1. The clear finding that RBC did not have any right of property in any client.

2. The finding that the departing employees did not have a legal obligation to give RBC a reasonable opportunity to persuade clients to stay with RBC.

3. The finding that the departing employees did not have a legal obligation to "behave in a fair and reasonable manner" after they left the service of RBC.

4. The finding that the departing employees owed a duty to provide RBC with reasonable notice of their resignations.

5. The finding that the departing employees were entitled to take a list of their "book of business" and did not need to rely on memory for their contact information. The Court emphasized that this entitlement did not extend to clients of other advisors or to account statements and other documents concerning the client including the "Know Your Client" form. On this issue the Court stated as follows:

"Because of that important interest of the client, an advisor should be able, without fear of litigation, to prepare a list of his own book of business from the records of the brokerage house. To hold in the 21st century that an adviser, who usually, by considerable personal diligence, has built up a book of business, must rely on his memory for the full names, addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail address of his clients, is not, in my opinion, in the interests of the clients and, therefore, is not in the public interest. I emphasize "his own book of business". He is not entitled to take a list of other advisors’ clients. To put it another way, the interests of the brokerage house should not be put ahead of the interests of the clients ... I do not say that an advisor is entitled to take copies of account statements and other papers concerning the client, such as the Know Your Client form. If the client wants to change to the new firm, he or she can give instructions to the old firm to hand over copies of all relevant documents, or give the advisor a copy of his or her own statements, and so forth. For the advisor to take other documents would be quite wrong because the client may consider that parts of those documents are confidential and he or she would not wish them to be in the possession of the new firm. I have in mind, for instance, that a client is obliged to give to an investment firm where he has an account, his social insurance number."

6. The finding that there is no breach of the duty of loyalty to one’s employer to entertain an offer of employment or accept it while he or she is an employee and that a breach will only occur if the employee leaves before the contract has expired or when proper notice is not provided.

7. The finding that an employee need not give his or her employer notice of the terms offered by the new employer and an opportunity to retain his services by matching such terms.

8. The finding that the departing branch manager was not a fiduciary or otherwise owed a "special duty" to RBC.

9. That while the departing employees breached their employer’s confidence by removing the client records, such breach was limited in scope because there was no evidence as to why a particular client chose to move to Merrill Lynch and therefore a causal connection could not be made between the breach of confidence and the loss of business and that it was probable that the client would want to stay with their advisor in any event.

Finally, it is of interest that the Court did not disturb the punitive damages award when such award arose out of the conduct of the departing employees and Merrill Lynch in taking the client records to Merrill Lynch for copying while they were still employees of RBC. Apart from the concern raised by the Court that there was no evidence to connect the taking of these records with the loss of business, this conduct was clearly in breach of the employee’s duty of fidelity to RBC as well as their duty not to compete with RBC during the period of their employment. This inability to connect the taking of these records with the loss of business clearly ended up being fatal to RBC’s claim for compensatory damages. But, obviously, the misconduct was considered to be serious enough to warrant the award of punitive damages although it seems that the Court was more upset with the impact that this conduct could have on the clients than on RBC. Again, the client’s interest (or public interest) played an important role.

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada has been sought. In the meantime, employers looking to protect their legitimate business interests will be well served by paying close attention to this decision. The careful use of contractual provisions including: appropriate non-solicitation covenants and restrictions on post-termination conduct; termination provisions that set out how much termination notice the employee must provide the employer; confidentiality and non-disclosure covenants; and codes of conduct which specify what an employee can and cannot do while employed, all may assist the employer in protecting its interests in a departing employee scenario.

Care should also be paid to the client and/or public interest in circumscribing employee conduct.

If you would like more information about this decision, how it might impact your business and assistance with strategies to minimize such impact, please do not hesitate to contact us.

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
23 Oct 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Dentons and SheEO are coming together for an evening of #radicalgenerosity on October 23, 2017. Meet Vicki Saunders, Founder of SheEO, and learn about how SheEO is changing the landscape for female entrepreneurs.

23 Oct 2018, Seminar, Montreal, Canada

Dentons is pleased to invite you to join us for a breakfast seminar as part of the Les Matinées Dentons series on issues relevant to you and your business.

24 Oct 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

If you build it, claims may come. Join the Dentons Construction group for breakfast and an informative discussion on current topics in construction law.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions