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


 
 

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top