Employer raises alarm over confidential files and non-compete breaches after key employees exit for rival company
A British Columbia court has delivered a sharp rebuke to a mining equipment giant’s attempt to block three former employees from joining a competitor, highlighting the limits of restrictive employment contracts in a competitive talent market.
On September 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Epiroc’s request for an injunction against ex-FVT Research president Brad Zimmerman, colleagues Michael Barnhill and Alan Tweedie, their consulting firms, and Joy Global (Canada) Ltd. Epiroc claimed the trio had left with confidential files and lured away staff, but the court found the evidence lacking.
The dispute began after Epiroc, a global mining equipment manufacturer, acquired FVT Research in 2021. Zimmerman, FVT’s former president, stayed on with Epiroc, along with colleagues Barnhill and Tweedie. By late 2023, Zimmerman resigned, followed by Barnhill and Tweedie in early 2025.
All three soon resurfaced as consultants for Joy Global (Canada) Ltd., a major Epiroc rival. Epiroc accused the trio of taking confidential files and poaching staff, seeking a court order to block them from using company information, working for competitors, or recruiting Epiroc employees. The court, however, found Epiroc’s claims lacking in both evidence and clarity.
Court finds vague clauses and weak evidence
A key issue was Epiroc’s definition of “confidential information.” The court found it too vague and broad, stressing that employers must clearly identify what information is protected. Without clear definitions, the judge noted, contract language is not enough to support legal action.
Forensic IT analysis showed Barnhill and Tweedie accessed and copied files before leaving, but both said they destroyed the files and never shared confidential material. The court found no admissible evidence that any confidential information was misused or retained.
Epiroc also relied on hearsay—statements from employees about alleged solicitations and business dealings. The court ruled this evidence inadmissible, emphasizing that direct evidence is required to justify restricting someone’s employment. Suspicion and speculation, the court said, are not enough.
Non-compete agreements under microscope
The court questioned whether Epiroc’s non-compete agreements were even valid. Zimmerman had signed a new employment contract in 2023 that didn’t include a non-compete clause, which the court said could override any earlier promises.
For Barnhill and Tweedie, their contracts included confidentiality and non-solicitation clauses for six months, but no non-compete terms. Both denied soliciting Epiroc employees, saying new hires responded to public job postings.
After resigning, all three began consulting for Joy Global. Epiroc sent cease-and-desist letters, and Barnhill and Tweedie confirmed they destroyed all relevant files and did not retain or share confidential material.
Broad clauses leave employers exposed
Epiroc sought to ban the use of confidential information, block Zimmerman from working for competitors or soliciting staff, and order the return and preservation of company information. The court rejected all requests, finding Epiroc had not clearly described what information was confidential, had not shown any real risk of harm, and had not proven that any defendants still had company files.
The court noted that suspicion and speculation are not enough to restrict someone’s ability to work or impose broad legal restrictions on former employees. Epiroc’s arguments about irreparable harm were based on hypothetical scenarios, not actual evidence.
The application by Epiroc was dismissed in its entirety. The decision underscores the need for employers to draft precise, enforceable agreements and to provide clear, admissible evidence when seeking to enforce restrictive covenants or protect confidential information in court.
