Accordingly, as later confirmed by the Supreme Court in Guay inc. c Payette, 2013 SCC 45, the criteria for analyzing restrictive
covenants in a commercial context will be less demanding than in the employment context, and the basis for finding such covenants to be reasonable will be much broader in the former as opposed to the latter.
Not exact matches
As discussed above, the reasonableness of a restrictive
covenant is more broadly interpreted
in the
commercial context than
in the employment
context.
In addition, the court applied its own older decision in Tank Lining Corp. v. Dunlop Industrial Ltd. (1982), where it held that in all cases a party's entitlement to enforce a restrictive covenant was based on the protection of a legitimate or proprietary interest, such as the goodwill of a business in a commercial context or the confidential information unique to an employmen
In addition, the court applied its own older decision
in Tank Lining Corp. v. Dunlop Industrial Ltd. (1982), where it held that in all cases a party's entitlement to enforce a restrictive covenant was based on the protection of a legitimate or proprietary interest, such as the goodwill of a business in a commercial context or the confidential information unique to an employmen
in Tank Lining Corp. v. Dunlop Industrial Ltd. (1982), where it held that
in all cases a party's entitlement to enforce a restrictive covenant was based on the protection of a legitimate or proprietary interest, such as the goodwill of a business in a commercial context or the confidential information unique to an employmen
in all cases a party's entitlement to enforce a restrictive
covenant was based on the protection of a legitimate or proprietary interest, such as the goodwill of a business
in a commercial context or the confidential information unique to an employmen
in a
commercial context or the confidential information unique to an employment.
The court is required to presume as valid restrictive clauses
in the
commercial context (such as the sale of a business), while
in the employment
context it was required to scrutinize the reasonableness of the
covenant.
There was no need to determine whether the restrictive
covenant in this case (i) was entitled to a presumption of reasonableness (as done
in the
commercial context), (ii) required a high level of scrutiny (as done
in an employment contract), or (iii) perhaps fell somewhere on a spectrum between these two ends (as is assumed
in respect of franchise agreements, which are typically contracts of adhesion yet involve independent contractors
in a
commercial context).
Once it is established that a restrictive
covenant resides
in the
commercial context, the
covenant will be found to be lawful provided that it is limited to what is reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of the party
in whose favour it was granted.
In a pure
commercial context, where a party may seek to restrain a seller of a business from competing with a buyer or prevent a shareholder from competing with a company he is leaving, the courts more readily enforce restrictive
covenants.