Programmed Ins v. Stoneridge Ins

Firms involved

McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Goodmans LLP
PROGRAMMED INSURANCE BROKERS INC.
Law Firm
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Lawyer(s)

Christopher Hubbard

Akiva Stern

Melina Zaccaria

STONERIDGE INSURANCE BROKERS
Law Firm
Goodmans LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michael Wilson

Ben Hackett

Meghan de Snoo

PREFERRED INSURAMCE GROUP LIMITED
Law Firm
Goodmans LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michael Wilson

Ben Hackett

Meghan de Snoo

THEODORE A. PUCCCINI
Law Firm
Goodmans LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michael Wilson

Ben Hackett

Meghan de Snoo

CHRIS OVECKA
Law Firm
Goodmans LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michael Wilson

Ben Hackett

Meghan de Snoo

EVELYN KONECNY
Law Firm
Goodmans LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michael Wilson

Ben Hackett

Meghan de Snoo

LAURA VAN BOXTEL
Law Firm
Goodmans LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michael Wilson

Ben Hackett

Meghan de Snoo

DEBBIE VAN HELDEN
Law Firm
Goodmans LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michael Wilson

Ben Hackett

Meghan de Snoo

KACY WARWICK
Law Firm
Goodmans LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michael Wilson

Ben Hackett

Meghan de Snoo

MIRANDA NEGRI
Law Firm
Goodmans LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michael Wilson

Ben Hackett

Meghan de Snoo

Overview:

Programmed Insurance Brokers Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a motion for interim injunctive relief against Stoneridge Insurance Brokers, Preferred Insurance Group Limited, and several individual defendants (Defendants), pending a hearing for an interlocutory injunction set for February 21, 2024. The motion sought to restrain the Defendants from using the Plaintiff's confidential client information and soliciting its business.

Key Points:

  • The Plaintiff is an insurance brokerage claiming that its former employees, who are now employed by the Defendants, resigned en masse and were recruited by the Defendants' brokerages to solicit business from the Plaintiff's client base.
  • A whistleblower provided evidence supporting the Plaintiff's claims.
  • The Defendants argued that an injunction was unnecessary due to an undertaking provided in response to the motion, claiming they had no interest in using the Plaintiff's confidential information.
  • The court granted interim relief regarding the confidentiality of the Plaintiff's information, considering it essential to protect against the potential misuse of such information.
  • The request for an interim order on non-solicitation was deemed unnecessary at this stage due to the formulation of the order against using confidential information.

Conclusion:

The court issued an interim injunction focused on protecting the Plaintiff's confidential information from misuse by the Defendants. The order specifically prohibits the Defendants from disclosing, using for their own purposes, altering, destroying, copying, removing, or transferring any documents or information containing the Plaintiff's confidential data. The Plaintiff was awarded agreed-upon costs for the motion. No amount specified in the document.

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-23-00711350-0000
Labour & Employment Law
Plaintiff