• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Blog

Logo 1 Created with Sketch.

  • About
  • Our Lawyers
    • Andrew Wray
    • Juan Echavarria
    • Salman Rana
  • Expertise
    • Employment Law
    • Civil Litigation
    • COVID-19 Resources
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Book a Consultation
Non-Competition-Agreement-employment-lawyers-wray-legal

Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements

April 29, 2021 Tags: Covid Employment Law, Employment Law

In the employment context, the term “restrictive covenant” refers to terms in the employment agreement which attempt to limit what employees can do after the end of the employment relationship. Such terms may be enforceable where the employee quits his or her job, or where it is terminated, with or without cause. Generally speaking, restrictive covenants take the form of what are known as “non-competition” and “non-solicitation” agreements or clauses.

Simply put, non-solicitation provisions prevent employees from approaching and soliciting clients, employees, and business partners of the previous employer, such as suppliers, once the employment ends. Non-competition provisions seek to prevent employees from working for a competitor business or setting up their own competing business. The latter are considered more restrictive as they can have the effect of restraining work in an industry, making it difficult for the employee to earn a living. Courts will generally be reluctant to interfere with an individual’s ability to work, and make a living, therefore, the standards for enforceability of restrictive covenants are high, specially so in the case of non-competition agreements.

The Court in Ford v. Keegan, 2014 ONSC 4989, put the legal test for enforceability of restrictive covenants in simple terms. To be valid and enforceable, the covenants must be reasonable with regards to the limitations imposed, being the type of activity prohibited, the restricted geographical area, and the length of time for which the restrictions will apply. Additionally, employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants will also have the onus of showing they have a valid proprietary interest entitled to protection, such as confidential information, client information and access, and trade secrets.

For example, where a dental office hires a new dentist to provide services, it may include a restrictive covenant in the agreement. The restrictive provisions may state that all clients belong to the dental office, and upon leaving, the dentist will not be allowed to solicit any of the clients to follow him or her to a new dental practice. Similarly, the agreement may stipulate that the dentist may not approach other employees of the dental office to follow him or her. For such terms to be enforceable, the employer will have to show that they are reasonable.

Whether a restrictive covenant is found to be reasonable by the Court, will depend on the context of each situation. In the context of the example above, if the restrictions are to be in force for an indefinite period of time, or a lengthy period, such as 10 years, and are applicable throughout all of Ontario, then the Court is unlikely to find that they are reasonable. This is because the Court will be hesitant to prevent the dentist from carrying on the profession as he or she wishes for such a long, or even indefinite, period, and within such a broad geographical area. On the other hand, if the restrictions were to apply for only 1 to 2 years, and they were limited to the City of Toronto, or even just a sector of the City, then a Court would be much more likely to find that they are reasonable. The Court may see the latter restrictions as a reasonable measure by the dental office to protect a business interest such as clients, and other employees, from being recruited away by a previous employee, who would have had access to them because of his or her employment.

While the principle of reasonableness applies to both non-solicitation and non-competition agreements, non-competition agreements are generally much more difficult to enforce. Courts have held that where a non-solicitation agreement would suffice to protect the employer’s business interest, it will not enforce a non-competition provision. Because of this, non-competition provisions are normally reserved for circumstances such as the sale of a business, as they may be reasonably required to prevent the seller of a business from opening a competing business immediately after completing the sale, and thereafter taking back clients and employees from the business he or she just sold.

When an employer intends to restrict the activities of a previous employee, the Court will also consider the position the employee held. This is so because depending on the position, the employee may owe fiduciary duties to the employer, which effectively require the employee to put the best interest of the employer first. Such duties may continue even after the employment relationship ends.

It can be difficult for employees to determine if a non-solicitation or non-competition agreement is reasonable, and whether they owe fiduciary duties to the employer, although the latter is implied when it concerns senior executives or senior managerial positions. Most employees are not in a position to negotiate the terms of their employment agreements so these issues do not often arise until after the end of the employment relationship, and the employer attempts to enforce them. Because of this, it is important to consult a lawyer to seek advise regarding the enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment agreements, and the restrictions therein.

As lawyers with expertise in employment law, we often advise our clients on these matters. You may contact us at any time with your questions.

 

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Does My Original Contract Still Apply After 15 Years of Employment?
  • Mass Layoffs: Know the Law, Know your Rights
  • Severance pay in Ontario: What if I am fired for cause?
  • Should Companies update their Employment Contracts?
  • Non-competition Agreements Restricted under the Employment Standards Act

Tags

Blog Civil Litigation Constructive Dismissal Covid Employment Law Covid Mental Health Covid Wrongful Termination Employment Employment Contract Employment Law Health and Safety Human Rights Juan Echavarria Just Cause Termination Limitation Period Long-Term Disability Benefits LTD Benefits LTD Insurance Benefits Mechanical Business News Resignation Sale of Business Severance Pay Stock Options Termination Law termination notice Termination rights Total Disability wrongful dismissal

Footer

Contact Us

181 University Avenue, Suite 2200 Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 3M7

T 416-642-0460
F 416-363-7875

Contact Page LinkedIn
Book a Consultation





    Please note that contact through our website is for informational purpose only and does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

    * Required

    [anr_nocaptcha g-recaptcha-response]

    Reviews

    Clecia Louzado
    Clecia Louzado
    2021-05-10
    Andrew is very professional, knowledgeable, fair and straightforward. I was grateful for his ability to outline all my options clearly and also his professionalism during a difficult time in his personal life. He did not let his personal life affect any time sensitive needs of my case, which didn’t go unnoticed. Highly recommend Andrew!
    Anton Koschany
    Anton Koschany
    2021-02-21
    Andrew Wray provided thorough analysis of my circumstances and provided sound advice. He is personable, knowledgeable and took the stress out of a stressful situation. In my professional career I have had occasion to work with many lawyers and I can easily say that Andrew meets and exceeds the bar (pardon the pun). Anton K.
    Lamrana Bah
    Lamrana Bah
    2021-02-02
    I had a very positive experience with the staff at Wray Legal LLP. Andrew Wray is a very brilliant bilingual lawyer. I was in search of a French Speaking lawyer and I came across him. He is a good listener, very professional with patience and passion for his job. I am grateful I met you. Thanks to you and your staff for your exceptional services 🙂
    Jamie Saunders
    Jamie Saunders
    2021-01-21
    Andrew Wray came highly recommended and now I know why! Andrew took a personal and very supportive approach as he helped to guide me through a long and challenging labour hearing process that had already cost me too many sleepless nights. His demonstrated understanding of the complex legal and procedural issues gave me tremendous confidence. Having never previously testified or given evidence, his advice on what I could expect on the stand was worth its weight in gold. I was kept completely in the loop with regard to strategies and next steps, and was always made to feel like I was steering the ship - with Andrew as my formidable engine. Oh, and by the way, we won the case! 🙂
    Mark Cuff
    Mark Cuff
    2020-12-19
    I am also highly recommending Wray Legal. Andrew represented me in a complicated employment matter - he was extremely responsive, and knowledgable in offering excellent legal advice. Andrew explained/outlined thoroughly what to expect and worked to make sure I was getting the very best outcome. I really liked how very realistic he was about my options and which would be the most beneficial to my specific situation. Wray Legal came highly recommended from friends and I can see why. Excellent experience
    Jennifer Morrison
    Jennifer Morrison
    2020-12-18
    Andrew and his team were there for me at a very difficult time. Andrew is always kind and compassionate, while understanding the job that needs to be done. I was very pleased with the outcome of my case. When it comes to a legal team, you want the best in your corner and Andrew is the best! I would highly recommend calling Andrew to see how his team can get the best settlement for you, I’m glad I did!
    Richard Goodman
    Richard Goodman
    2020-12-18
    Andrew helped me to resolve a complicated legal dispute with a former employer. Andrew was extremely professional is all of his dealings with me and opposing counsel. Andrew treated me as a partner, not just a client. It was an extremely positive experience and outcome, especially considering the difficult nature of the dispute. Thanks for all your help, Andrew!
    Tamara Roitman
    Tamara Roitman
    2020-12-11
    Andrew represented me through a workplace issue during a very low point in my life. From a legal standpoint he was extremely knowledgeable and professional. More than that, however, he was kind, gentle and understanding.  Having a lawyer that not only knew what he was doing, but who is also a good human being who went above and beyond to communicate and offer emotional support was the best possible thing both for the outcome of my case as well as for my mental health. I will always feel grateful to Andrew and his firm.
    © 2023 Wray Legal