Manufacturing
ONCA allows appeal, grants declaration that restrictive covenant is unreasonable and therefore unenforceable
In Mason v. Chem-Trend Limited Partnership, 2011 ONCA 344, the Ontario Court of appeal overturned the application judge's decision and ruled that the following restrictive covenant was unreasonable and therefore unenforceable against a 17 year technical salesperson whose employment was terminated for just cause:
I agree that if my employment is terminated for any reason by me or by the Company, I will not, for a period of one year following the termination, directly or indirectly, for my own account or as an employee or agent of any business entity, engage in any business or activity in competition with the Company by providing services or products to, or soliciting business from, any business entity which was a customer of the Company during the period in which I was an employee of the Company, or take any action that will cause the termination of the business relationship between the Company and any customer, or solicit for employment any person employed by the Company.
Employer did not have just cause to dismiss VP Finance it alleged was insolent, insubordinate and lacked judgment
In Kokilev v. Picquic Tool Company Inc., 2010 BCSC 1412, the BC Supreme Court ruled that an employer did not have just cause to dismiss its VP Finance on the basis that he was insolent, insubordinate and lacked judgment.
At the time his employment was terminated, the VP Finance had almost eight years of service, earned $100,000 annually and was approximately 41 years old. The court awarded him a 10 month notice period.
(Postscript: James D. Kondopulos, a lawyer at Roper Greyell in Vancouver, has written a summary of the case that can be found here: "Dealing with the Insolent, Insubordinate or Disobedient Employee". The article first appeared in the B.C. Human Resources Management Association's HRVoice Magazine (March 2011)).
Update on the Bill C-45 health and safety amendments to the Criminal Code
The 2004 "Bill C-45" amendments to the Criminal Code opened the door for an organization to be charged criminally for not meeting its workplace health and safety obligations.
There has only been one criminal conviction under the amendments since they were introduced, according to an article on "Criminal Negligence and the Corporation" in the winter edition of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association magazine written by Toronto lawyer Pradeep Chand.
Transpave, Inc. , a concrete block manufacturer near Montreal, pled guilty to criminal negligence causing death in December 2007. The charges were brought in relation to a 2005 workplace accident in which a 23 year-old Transpave employee was crushed to death while trying to clear a jam in a machine.
Transpave was subsequently fined $100,000 by the Quebec court, which was the amount that Crown counsel and the lawyer for the company had jointly agreed was appropriate.
(Note: The federal government's Plain Language Guide to Bill C-45, which appears to have been written before it was passed, can be found here).
