Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal over economic tort, fiduciary duty, non-competition and bonus disputes, and upheld costs awards to the respondents.
The court dismissed an interlocutory injunction application seeking to stop a dental recruiter from working in Canada, finding no strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.
The Court of Appeal upheld an interlocutory injunction enforcing a non-competition clause, but varied the order so it matched the clause’s narrower scope.
Leave to appeal from an interlocutory injunction was granted, but a stay was refused. The Court found arguable merit in the appeal, yet no irreparable harm.
Defendant quit on January 15, 2015 and thereby breached his contractual obligations to continue supervising the apprentice and to refrain from competing; those breaches foreseeably deprived the plaintiffs of the use and value of the acquired business and of the apprentice's chance to qualify, entitling plaintiffs to compensatory damages assessed by estimating lost business profits and lost chance rather than return of the purchase price; defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Although the Appeal Division found the General Division made a factual error regarding a significant modification of salary terms (commission rate differences), the General Division correctly identified at least two viable reasonable alternatives (requesting a leave of absence and looking for other work) that the Claimant did not pursue; because absence of reasonable alternatives is an essential element of just cause, the Claimant failed to establish just cause and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
La Cour rejette les injonctions provisoires et interlocutoires demandées, jugeant la clause restrictive trop large et la définition de « confidentiel » trop vague.
The contract between ACT and Dr. McLeod was frustrated by the dissolution of the ACT-TRC arrangement resulting in a radical, unforeseen change; the non-competition provision was not breached as properly interpreted and would not be read so broadly as to create a personal services obligation; however appellants are entitled to an underpayment of $8,194.59 for the period prior to July 10, 2015; appeal allowed in part and costs to respondent fixed at $10,000.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found the Commission did not meet its burden to prove wilful misconduct: evidence showed a consistent employer practice of having the appellant invoice clients in his company name with subsequent reimbursement, the appellant acted with employer knowledge or authorization and without intent to profit, and there was no causal link showing wilful misconduct led to dismissal; therefore disqualification under ss.29‑30 was not justified.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Blu-Water’s application to vary an injunction, finding no material unforeseen change in circumstances and treating the alleged disassociation as likely a sham.
Explore more
