Robin Boys et al v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc.
Summary
This is an interlocutory application regarding whether claims for supplementary pension benefits were barred by the Limitations Act, 2002. The applicants sought declarations regarding their pension rights, arguing that the limitation period did not begin until payments were due, while the respondent contended it began upon issuance of option notices. The court applied principles of contract law regarding anticipatory breach and the discovery of claims to determine if the claims were statute-barred.
Key Factors
- pension benefits
- limitation period
- anticipatory breach
- discovery of claim
- employment contract
Related Cases
Ballance It Inc. v. Lessard
2026 ONSC 5148 (CanLII) · 2026-09-10Employment Contract: Interlocutory Injunction Refused
This interlocutory proceeding addressed whether the employer established a strong prima facie case to restrain a former employee from breaching non-solicitation and confidentiality obligations under their employment agreement. The court assessed the reasonableness of restrictive covenants and the handling of confidential information on personal devices, ultimately refusing the injunction as the prima facie case was not met.
Bellwether Investment Management Inc. v. Harbourfront Wealth Management Inc.
2026 ONSC 3622 (CanLII) · 2026-05-19Enforceability of Non-Compete & Non-Solicit Clauses
This interlocutory proceeding addresses the enforceability of non-solicitation and non-competition clauses in an employment agreement. The court found a strong prima facie case that the defendant breached these restrictive covenants by soliciting clients and employees, leading to the issuance of an injunction. Additionally, a show cause hearing was ordered regarding alleged contempt of court for violating the interim injunction.
Cowan Insurance Group Ltd, v. Bennett
2026 ONSC 1413 (CanLII) · 2026-03-09Non-Compete Injunction Dismissed: ESA s. 67.2 Analysis
This interlocutory motion sought an injunction to prohibit a former employee from soliciting the plaintiff's clients, alleging breaches of restrictive covenants. The court dismissed the motion, finding that existing contractual and court-ordered restrictions were sufficient to protect confidential information, that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, and that the requested restraint was inconsistent with the prohibition on non-compete agreements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.
One World Logistics Group Corp. v. Sotiri
2025 ONSC 7224 (CanLII) · 2025-12-24Dismissal of Injunction for Restrictive Covenants
An interlocutory injunction motion was dismissed where the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success in enforcing non-competition and non-solicitation covenants. The court found the plaintiffs did not meet the evidentiary burden for irreparable harm or prove a likely breach of the restrictive covenants.
Green Life Inc. et al. v. 24K Maple Supply Inc. et al.
2025 ONSC 7356 (CanLII) · 2025-12-05Injunction Refused: Expired Non-Compete & Confidentiality
This interlocutory motion concerned an application for an injunction to enforce confidentiality obligations and restrict competition, where the underlying non-competition clauses had expired. The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding no serious question to be tried regarding the confidentiality of pricing and stock information which was largely public, and determined that damages were an adequate remedy. The motion was dismissed as the balance of convenience favoured the respondents and the relief sought would effectively shut down the competing business.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Ontario Severance is an educational tool. If you are facing a serious employment law matter, consult with a qualified employment lawyer in Ontario.