Quebec Superior Court rejects aggressive safeguard order against two ex‑executives building steel mill
A Quebec Superior Court judge has refused to bar two former senior executives of Pipe & Piling Supplies Ltd. (PPSL) from continuing to build a U.S. steel mill, finding the company’s bid for a sweeping interim order is not justified on the current record.
In an April 10, 2026 judgment, Justice Thomas Davis dismissed PPSL’s Application for a Safeguard Order against Anshu and Inder Bhatia, who were dismissed on March 3, 2026 after decades with the Quebec‑based steel pipe and piling group.
PPSL had asked the court to:
“ORDER the Defendants Inder Bhatia and Anshu Bhatia to immediately cease and desist from taking any further involvement, actions, communications or steps, either directly or indirectly, in connection to the business or operations of Mahat Steel Pipe Inc. … and/or in regards to the building of steel mill on behalf of Mahat Steel Pipe Inc. in Dearborn, Michigan and Livingston, New York;”
and to:
“ORDER Defendants Inder Bhatia and Anshu Bhatia to cease and refrain from, either directly or indirectly, being employed by and/or rendering services to any company or entity involved in the manufacture, sale and/or distribution of steel pipe and piling anywhere in Canada and the United States of America;”
Lack of non-competes
Justice Davis called PPSL’s right to such broad relief “far from apparent,” especially since the company never negotiated non‑competition clauses with the Bhatias.
Justice Davis examined post-employment obligations without a restrictive covenant, citing the Court of Appeal in Gutin c. Cenfood International Inc.: "It must be noted that art. 2088 does not impose upon the employee the equivalent of a non-competition clause and that the obligations of loyalty and confidentiality only 'continue for a reasonable time' after the termination of the contract. The duration of this 'reasonable time' may not exceed a few months (seldom more than three or four), to be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
The ruling builds on a March 17, 2026 provisional judgment by Justice Horia Bundaru, who had found a “serious question” about possible disloyal competition and ordered the Bhatias not to use PPSL’s confidential information and not to solicit its employees for a limited period.
He declined, however, to prohibit their involvement in Mahat Steel or in the broader steel pipe and piling industry, stressing that Mahat then had “aucun laminoir opérationnel” (translated: no mills in operation).
Push for safeguard order
PPSL returned to court arguing that new evidence about Mahat’s “small mill” in Dearborn, Michigan justified a 45‑day safeguard order. Investigators had observed welders, engineers and four days of site visits by the Bhatias, and linked a visitor’s vehicle to a steel industry figure known to PPSL.
Justice Davis found this did not meaningfully change the picture. Anshu’s March 26 declaration confirmed the mill “is not yet operational” and “aims to produce M&M USA Steel mainly intended for federally funded projects,” which he said represents “an insignificant portion of PPSL’s operations in the USA.”
The mill would manufacture only spiral welded pipe, with an expected capacity of only 10,000 tons per year (10 times less than PPSL).
“The comings and goings of some welders and engineers do not demonstrate that the Detroit mill will soon be in production,” the judge wrote, adding that “at least three months will have passed” after the dismissals before the mill could produce.
He also noted PPSL had not shown it carries on important business in the resale of M&M steel products, or that the future output would target its existing clients.
No evidence of disloyal conduct
On the four injunctive criteria, Justice Davis held that PPSL’s right to the requested orders was “very doubtful at this time,” that “the balance of convenience clearly favours the Bhatias being permitted to develop the Detroit mill,” that any future harm could be compensated in damages, and that PPSL had not established urgency for a 45‑day order when production remained weeks away.
“There is no cogent evidence that they are (or were) engaged in disloyal conduct, such as using information obtained during their employment to solicit PPSL’s clients,” he concluded. The Bhatias have agreed to extend the earlier confidentiality and non‑solicitation orders until an interlocutory injunction is decided.
"They have agreed not to solicit any employees. Absent disloyal conduct, they have the right to compete and earn their livings."
The court therefore dismissed PPSL’s Application for a Safeguard Order, with judicial costs. The broader dispute over alleged disloyal competition and the scope of the Bhatias’ obligations will be decided later on a fuller evidentiary record.
