Canadian Appeals Monitor Information and Commentary on Upcoming and Recent Appeal Court Decisions

Tag Archives: restrictive covenants

Cook or Get Out of the Kitchen: Legitimate Interest Required to Enforce a Restrictive Covenant

Posted in Case Comments, Civil Litigation, Franchise and Distribution

MEDIchair LP v DME Medeqip Inc., 2016 ONCA 168 is a case with important implications for all franchisors and franchisees. In the decision released on February 29, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down a non-competition covenant because the franchisor had no intention of operating a competing business within the geographical area covered by the covenant.  Overturning the lower court decision, the Court of Appeal held that a legitimate proprietary interest is necessary to enforce a restrictive covenant.… Continue Reading

10 Most Important Appeals of 2013

Posted in Case Comments, Features

 In order to help lawyers argue about cases at holiday parties, the Appeals Monitor is happy to once again present our countdown of the most significant civil appeals of 2013 that are sure to impact Canadian businesses.  Watch out soon for a review of the upcoming appeal decisions that are likely to be big stories in 2014

 

Sable Offshore Energy: Is a settlement with one defendant really without prejudice?

 

Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp., previously reported on here, is a significant development in the law of settlement privilege and will affect legal strategy … Continue Reading

This Week at the SCC (25/01/2013)

Posted in The SCC Monitor

Cases Heard

The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments this week in two cases of interest to Canadian businesses and professions, and reserved judgment in each.

The first is an appeal from Guay Inc. c. Payette, 2011 QCCA 2282, in which the Quebec Court of Appeal held that restrictive covenants which precluded the appellant from competing with or soliciting customers of the respondent for five years after termination of his employment were valid, notwithstanding the trial judge’s findings below that the appellant had been wrongfully dismissed by the respondent and that the covenants were too broad to be enforced.

Continue Reading