Call us: (905) 366 9700
Legal Blog:
Feb
01
2009
Restrictive
Assume that a restrictive covenant, contained in an employment agreement, states that, once the employment is terminated, an employee cannot solicit business for one year from any of the employer’s customers doing business in the Greater Toronto Area (the “GTA”). The restrictive covenant seems to be reasonable. It is a non-solicitation, rather than a non-competition, covenant (see October 2008 newsletter); the restricted time is relatively short; and the geographical area is limited. However, is GTA a defined term? If not, is it ambiguous and, therefore, is the covenant containing it unreasonable? If it is, can the employer do anything if the employee starts soliciting its customers in the City of Toronto? Some of these questions are answered in Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. [2009] S.C.J. No. 6.
Continue Reading >Feb
01
2009
Norwich Order
What recourse does a creditor have when it suspects that it has been defrauded and needs information from a third party to either confirm or allay its suspicions? Under the right circumstances, the creditor can obtain a Norwich order, named after the plaintiff in an English case. The Norwich order has not been used extensively in Ontario or Canada, but, we suspect, it will be used far more following Isofoton v. TD Canada Trust, a 2007 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Continue Reading >