ARC Surveys Ltd v Ni

Firms involved

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Not specified, Whitelaw Twining (WT BCA LLP), LG Wilson Law
ARC Surveys Ltd.
Law Firm
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Lawyer(s)

David Tupper

Sophie Mansfield

Han Da Ni
Law Firm
Not specified
DJ Drafting Consultants Ltd.
Law Firm
Whitelaw Twining (WT BCA LLP)
Lawyer(s)

Ram Sankaran

Zoom Surveys Ltd.
Law Firm
LG Wilson Law
Lawyer(s)

Edward Gale

Key Issues:

  1. Non-Competition Agreement (NCA) & Non-Solicitation Agreement (NSA):

    • ARC sought a permanent injunction claiming breaches of these agreements by the Defendants.
    • Defendants, Han Da Ni, DJ Drafting Consultants Ltd., Zoom Surveys Ltd., argued the agreements were vague, unreasonable, and unenforceable.
  2. Reasonableness of the Restrictive Covenants:

    • Duration: The court found the seven-year restriction unreasonable, favoring Ni's claim that the term was excessively punitive without proper consideration.
    • Geographic Scope: Applied to all of Alberta, deemed overly broad.
  3. Summary Judgment:

    • The court handled parts of the case summarily, addressing the enforceability of the NCA/NSA.
    • The full merits of the alleged breaches and corresponding damages require a full trial due to issues of credibility and detailed fact-finding.

Court Findings:

  • Enforceability: The restrictive covenants were declared unreasonable and unenforceable due to:
    • Excessive duration.
    • Lack of sufficient evidence for a compelling need to protect ARC's business.
    • Lack of new consideration for the extended restrictions beyond the agreed terms in earlier shareholder agreements.
  • Result: The Defendants' cross-application was granted, invalidating the restrictive covenants. ARC’s application for an injunction was dismissed.

Practical Implications:

  • The decision underscores the importance of clearly defined and reasonable terms in restrictive covenants.
  • The case demonstrates judicial reluctance to enforce excessively broad non-competition clauses without clear justification.

Next Steps:

  • The court invited parties to address costs and the continuation of obligations under the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA).
  • No monetary award was specified at this stage.
Court of King's Bench of Alberta
2101 08568
Labour & Employment Law
Defendant