On August 20, 2018, in Lemieux v. Aon Parizeau Inc.1, the Quebec Court of Appeal inquired about the damages that could be invoked by a former employer in the event of a violation of a retraction and non-appeal clause and the worker`s duty of loyalty. The most frequently sought (and most frequently granted) type of exemption for violation of a non-compete agreement is an injunction. This means that, in many cases, the former employer cannot or cannot seek damages. Instead, they ask the court to respect the non-competition agreement and get the worker to leave the new employer. In that case, the Court of Appeal recalled that non-contract agreements do not protect former employers from the loss of customers caused by the resignation of one of their employees and the work of a competitor. If the relationship of trust between the employee and his clients is clearly established, they can follow him without ever being the subject of active, direct, urgent or repeated communications. In these circumstances, the non-solicitude clause is considered to be maintained and the employer cannot claim damages. After a trial, a Texas jury found at Horizon guns on a number of its claims.
The jury awarded Horizon millions of damages for future unrealized gains, due to executive failures to comply with their non-competitive and unfunded agreements, and more than $50,000 for stolen documents. On the other hand, it is also a warning of the potential risks associated with hiring workers who may be restricted after the termination of activity, such as non-invitations.B. When recruiting new staff subject to restrictive agreements, employers would be well advised to understand the restrictions imposed by these agreements and to provide the new employee with specific guidelines to avoid any form of behaviour that might contravene restrictive agreements. If the limits of an applicable restrictive pact are not respected, this can lead to exposure. The workers attempted to oppose this action because the non-warning clause was ambiguous, vague and inappropriate. In addition, the non-invitations were obtained without consideration and were therefore unreaseded. In court, the court rejected these arguments, found that the employees were more reluctant to contract, and RBC, which was liable by proxy for ordering employees to contact MD`s clients. Before the Court of Appeal, the workers again argued that the non-soliciting clause with respect to the term «requested,» the territorial scope, applicability to potential clients and the duration of the limitation were ambiguous.