Cases

Question 1

King vs. Biochem (QC superior court) (Employment)

Answer 1

• King was fired for insubordination and lack of respect
• Two verbal warnings with reasonable
• Burden of proof on EER to explain. No proof of written and no serious reason.

Decision: King awarded indemnity plus interset on 12 months salary.

Question 2

Dubé vs. Volcano (QC superior court) Employment

Answer 2

• fire with only 2 weeks severance pay
• terms indicated only 2 weeks
• Indeterminate contract: Yes
• Can they fire him: yes
• Economic reason sufficient: No
• 2 weeks reasonable: can’t waive right to reasonable notice (45 days)

Volcano must pay indemnity in lieu of reasonable notice

Question 3

Hassannie v Kaufel Group (QC Superior Court) Employment

Answer 3

• contract was being terminated following a buyout
• T&B noticed disloyalty (hassanie tried to buyout competing co) and fired him without sevrance
• T&B required to maintain yes
• Severance package, under contract yes
• Right to fire yes, EEE was placing interests above. Fiduciary duty

T&B wins, not required to pay indemnity or damages

Question 4

Copyfax v. Lambert (QC Superior Court) Employment

Answer 4

• signed non-competition clause
• serious reason: yes
• injunction against his ability to work is denied. non-competition clause denied
• interlocutary injunction against his use of confidential information granted

Question 5

A.R. Medicom vs Bergeron (QC Superior Court) (Employment)

Answer 5

Between Bergeron and Hubert, both have non competition clauses. Court rejects their employer’s request to enforce clause.

non-competition clause
writing: yes
time/place: yes
legitimate interest: yes
Limitations reasonable: no, world-wide and canada, unable to work anymore. 

Not passed, neither bergeron or hubert are bound by the clause

Question 6

Giroux vs. Malik (Contracts)

Answer 6

• Malik informed agents about issue with land
• giroux says he didn’t know
• malik did not tell giroux directly. Relative nullity, contract called.
• Giroux gets money back, Giroux awared damages

Question 7

Peter vs Fiasche (Contracts)

Answer 7

• long time friends
• tax evasion
• vitiated by G’s error: consicous of wrongful choice, inexcusable error
• illegal contact is null
• contract never existed
• Fiasche asked to pay back the $100k deposit

Question 8

Carrefour Langelier vs Cineplex Odeon, Contracts

Answer 8

• fearful, vitated by fear, can’t be used
• specific performance: not impossible to perform, successive performance, perished and

Guzzo must operate as Cineplex Odeon

Question 9

Copiescope vs TRM (Contracts)

Answer 9

• trm got interlocutary inunction against copescope
• adhesion, excessive non-comp clause
• copiescope can sell again