{"id":1277,"date":"2013-11-06T14:00:36","date_gmt":"2013-11-06T19:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.spiegelsohmer.com\/2013\/11\/06\/purchase-or-sale-of-a-business-supreme-court-of-canada-rules-on-non-competition-and-non-solicitation-clauses\/"},"modified":"2016-11-14T16:01:54","modified_gmt":"2016-11-14T21:01:54","slug":"purchase-or-sale-of-a-business-supreme-court-of-canada-rules-on-non-competition-and-non-solicitation-clauses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spiegelryan.com\/en\/2013\/11\/06\/purchase-or-sale-of-a-business-supreme-court-of-canada-rules-on-non-competition-and-non-solicitation-clauses\/","title":{"rendered":"Purchase or Sale of a Business: Supreme Court Of Canada Rules on Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Clauses"},"content":{"rendered":"

When purchasing or selling a business, there has always been a push and pull between the freedom to contract (a principle that would uphold non-competition and non-solicitation clauses), and the view that no person should be unduly restrained from earning a living (a principle leading to such clauses sometimes being held as being too wide and therefore null).<\/p>\n

Similar considerations also apply in a different context, namely employment contracts, where it is clear (see article 2089 of  the <\/i>Civil Code of Quebec<\/i><\/a>) that such clauses will be invalid if they are not limited \u201cas to time, place and type of employment, to whatever is necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of the employer.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of Canada (the \u201cSCC\u201d) has just ruled on non-competition<\/i> and non-solicitation clauses<\/i> in the context of the sale of a business, in the case of Payette v. Guay Inc.<\/i>, 2013 SCC 45<\/i><\/a> (the French language citation is Payette c. Guay inc., 2013 CSC 45<\/i><\/a>). This case concerned the sale of a crane rental business. The shareholder selling agreed to not work in the business anywhere in Quebec for five years (non-competition), and not to solicit, essentially anywhere, the customers and workers of the business for five years (non-solicitation). The SCC upheld this as valid, and noted that such clauses are more easily uphold in the sale of a business context (i.e., their scope as to time, place, and object can be wider than when an employee simply signs on to such clauses).<\/p>\n

The SCC also noted that you look at the agreement for the sale of the business \u201canalytically\u201d, rather than literally, to see whether these clauses (even if signed a few years after the sale) are part of the sale agreement (where the clauses are more easily upheld), or part of a later employment agreement (where the clauses are more easily null). As for other points made by the SCC, the following are notable:<\/p>\n