Great North Equipment Inc v Penney

Firms involved

Stikeman Elliott LLP, Not specified, McLennan Ross LLP, Bennett Jones LLP
Great North Equipment Inc.
Law Firm
Stikeman Elliott LLP
Lawyer(s)

Kris Noonan

Matti Lemmens

David Price

Cameron Penn

1185641 BC Ltd.
Law Firm
Stikeman Elliott LLP
Lawyer(s)

Kris Noonan

Matti Lemmens

David Price

Cameron Penn

Bradley Penney
Law Firm
Not specified
Lawyer(s)

D. McAllister

M. Andresen

Neil MacDonald
Law Firm
McLennan Ross LLP
Lawyer(s)

Maurice Dransfeld

Tessa Green

Dustin Monilaws
Law Firm
McLennan Ross LLP
Lawyer(s)

Maurice Dransfeld

Tessa Green

Paloma Pressure Control LLC
Law Firm
Bennett Jones LLP
Lawyer(s)

Grant N. Stapon, K.C.

Keely Cameron

Paloma PC Holdings LLC
Law Firm
Bennett Jones LLP
Lawyer(s)

Grant N. Stapon, K.C.

Keely Cameron

Paloma Pressure Control Canada Ltd.
Law Firm
Bennett Jones LLP
Lawyer(s)

Grant N. Stapon, K.C.

Keely Cameron

Indeed Oil Field Supply LLC
Law Firm
Not specified
Indeed Alberta Corp.
Law Firm
Not specified
  • Background:

    • In June 2023, three employees of Great North Equipment Inc. (the applicants) resigned and were alleged to have breached fiduciary and contractual duties. They reportedly used confidential information to form a competing business with Paloma Pressure Control entities.
    • A consent injunction issued on August 1, 2023, imposed obligations on the departed employees, including non-solicitation of employees/customers, prohibiting the use of confidential information, and surrendering electronic devices for inspection.
    • Great North sought to extend these obligations to the Paloma entities, but Justice Lema dismissed this application on September 6, 2024, allowing the injunction’s non-solicitation clause to expire.
    • The applicant appealed Justice Lema’s decision and sought a stay of his order pending the appeal, set for January 13, 2025.
  • Legal Issue: Whether the Alberta Court of Appeal should grant a stay of Justice Lema’s order pending appeal.

  • Decision:

    • Justice Joshua Hawkes dismissed the application for a stay. He determined:
      • The stay would effectively grant the remedy sought in the appeal prematurely, which is impermissible.
      • A stay cannot be issued on an order lacking affirmative or executory provisions.
    • No judgment was made regarding the appeal's merits or harm balance.
  • Key Authorities Cited:

    • Noscenco v Bagayeva (2015 ABCA 266)
    • Denis v Sauvageau (2022 ABCA 166)
    • Dr Vu v College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta (2023 ABCA 377)
  • Outcome: Application for a stay denied; appeal remains scheduled. 

    • The document does not specify any monetary awards, damages, or costs granted in this ruling.

Court of Appeal of Alberta
2401-0238AC
Labour & Employment Law
Respondent