Case1 : King v.BioChem Therapeutic Inc. Fact: Dr King is hired by Bio Chem. She signed a special contract that specifies a period of probation. During this period, she can be let go but you have to be known the wrong behavior in order to be able to rectify it. If the wrong behavior persists then your contract will be terminated.
Issue: Is the termination of the contract of Dr King for fault justified?
Employer version of facts:
1st meeting: after 5 months and a half, during this meeting, the management team are saying that they told her that she was being unsubordinated
2nd meeting: after 10 months, the management team told her that her behavior was still being not acceptable and that constitutes a second …show more content…
In order to get the interlocutory injunction, the judge would first look if you have:
A clear right
Doubtful right: in this case, you will have to prove balance of inconvenience. They would basically see which of the parties will end up with the most inconvenience, with the irreparable harm.
Non-existent right: you will not get the interlocutory injunction
Facts: Claude Lambert, worked for copyfax as a sales representative. However, he was also working for himself on the side, his employer did not allow that therefore Lambert decided to resign.
The contract included a non-competitive clause : Lambert was not allowed to work within 25 miles of Laval and Montreal for a year for the competitors of Copyfax.
However, Lambert starts competing in the zone. Copyfax is arguing that he is using the Copyfax customers, therefore also breaching the confidentiality clause.
They also included a penal clause of $6000 for breaching the contract.
Issue: Should Copyfax be entitled an interlocutory injunction against the former employee Lambert that would limit him to make business in the region?
Copyax has a doubtful right in the case of the non-competition clause. The judges found out that the non-competiting clause was lacking of clarity. The prohibited area is of 25 miles of Mtl and Lassale. What is the central point from which the area is calculated.
Conclusion: The employer did not establish that he will suffer