*This is a group forum, so I need a short reply that might contain a question about my colleague's judgment of the case.* cheers.

Classification of Law: Private Law (Employment Law)

Parties: Plaintiff: Chem-Trend Limited Partnership Ltd.

Defendant: Tom Mason

Type of Court: Provincial Lower Court

Case Facts:

Mason:

Mason, a technical salesperson, signed a confidentiality and a non-competition clause when he was hired, agreeing not to engage in competitive business or activities where he would be required to seek business from any of Chem-Trend clients for a period of one year following his departure. He was terminated from Chem-Trend after 17 years of service. Mason was familiar with some of Chem-Trend's clients that operated worldwide, and had extensive knowledge of Chem-Trend's products, operations, customers, and pricing.

Chem-Trend:

A global chemical manufacturer with customers and operations all over the world. Mason signed a standard form of contract that contained both a confidentiality clause and a non-competitive clause.

Case / Issue (sued for): The issue is whether the confidentiality and non-competition clauses were enforceable

Judgement: Liable. The provisions(non-competition and confidentiality clauses) in the standard form of contract were enforceable

Reasons: The wording in the contract was not equivocal and Mason understood what he was agreeing to when he signed it. The one year restriction was generally short and offset the burdensome geographical and activity restrictions. Also, the geographical scope, albeit almost limitless, was reasonable due to the worldwide nature of the company's business and it's clients, and that the almost full restrictions on Mason's activities was reasonable due his knowledge of the company.

Remedies: Injunction (Mason must carry out the clauses in the contract) / special damages

What factors are relevant in determining the enforceability of the non-competition clause?

Non-competition clauses in employment contracts are rarely enforced in Canadian courts. Subsequently, except if extremely specific conditions are met, these clauses are assumed unenforceable. To be upheld, the clauses should be appropriately restricted as far as its geographical extension, the measure of time it covers, and the exercises that the previous representative is allowed to take part in. Courts will just uphold the most explicitly worded and restrictive non-compete agreements in order to protect the public policy goal of keeping individuals employed in order to contribute to the tax base. Employees are regularly restless with regards to their conceivable outcomes in the wake of leaving their past work environment, and it is pivotal to look for a lawful direction and have non-compete provisions expertly assessed for inner serenity.

How could Mason and Chem-Trend have better protected their interest?

Mason could have protected himself by not signing or agreeing to the contract containing the clause, however it would probably risk the company not hiring him. Employers should contemplate what sorts of restrictions are appropriate for each individual, and take care in drafting restrictive covenants. Various types of limitations can be mixed and matched. All limits, however, must be reasonable. The purpose must be to safeguard the employer's intellectual property and business fairly, not to punish departing employees or limit competition. Agreements should also be written in such a way that clauses that are more likely to be invalidated can be separated while the rest of the agreement remains in effect. Clauses should be unambiguous, commercially reasonable, and practically workable.