Skip to content

Ontario ban on non-competes does not apply to agreements before October 25, 2021 – new case

Mark Tector and Will Wojcik

As we reported back in December 2021, one of the changes brought about by the Ontario Working for Workers Act (“Act”) was to ban non-compete agreements, except in certain limited circumstances such as for some executive level employees and in the context of a sale of business. However, one unanswered question was whether the ban would render void all existing non-compete agreements in Ontario.

Justice Mohan D. Sharma’s recent decision in Parekh et al v. Schecter et al2022 ONSC 302 has provided an answer to that question: The Act does not ban non-compete agreements entered into before October 25, 2021.

Background of the decision

In 2020, the plaintiffs purchased a dental practice from Dr. Michael Schecter, the son of Dr. Ira Schecter (“Ira”), the defendant. Ira originally owned the dental practice but sold it to his son in 2014. The two operated the father-son clinic in tandem, with Ira heavily involved with the management of the clinic despite selling his shares to his son. The Schecter’s took on other associate dentists over the years leading up to the 2020 sale.

A condition of the 2020 sale was that all associate dentists at the practice, including Ira, would enter into an Associate Agreement on closing. A further condition was that Ira would continue working at the practice for four years as the plaintiffs were fully aware of the importance of Ira to the practice, and the amount of the practice’s goodwill that was vested in Ira. The plaintiffs specifically sought three restrictive covenants from Ira within the Associate Agreement, namely: (1) a non-compete covenant, restricting Ira from practicing dentistry within a 5 km radius of the clinic; (2) a non-solicitation covenant, restricting Ira from soliciting patients; and (3) a clause restricting Ira’s use of confidential information. Ira remained an associate of the practice until his resignation in October 2021. Shortly thereafter, he began to work at a different practice within a 5 km radius of the clinic.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction to enforce the restrictive covenants. One of the arguments of Ira’s counsel was that the restrictive covenants were unenforceable in light of the Act and its prohibition on non-competes.

Reasoning of decision

The Ontario Superior Court (“Court”) confirmed that remedial legislation, such as the Act, should be given a broad interpretation but that “new legislation that affects substantive rights will be presumed to have only prospective effect unless it is possible to discern a clear legislative intent that it is to apply retrospectively”. The Court reviewed the Act and concluded the legislative intent was to have the prohibition on non-competes come into force on October 25, 2021, which was deemed to be the effective date in the Act. Given the express legislative intent, the Court concluded that the prohibition with respect to the non-compete clause did not apply to agreements entered into before October 25, 2021.

The Court ultimately ruled in favour of the plaintiffs and prohibited Ira from engaging in the practice of dentistry within the 5 km radius. As of the date of this article, we are unaware of any appeal having been filed in relation to this case.

Implication for your business

While we continue to monitor how the case law develops, the Parekh decision provides Ontario employers with some assurance that their non-compete agreements entered into prior to October 25, 2021 will not be rendered void by the Act.

Aside from the Act, drafting and enforcing non-compete agreements, whether in Ontario or other provinces, can be challenging and requires legal advice. Accordingly, employers are encouraged to seek counsel from our team if they have any specific questions or concerns regarding restrictive covenants, including non-compete provisions.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top