Posted in .
Article2024 | 11 | 25
Introduction
In People Corporation v. Quinn Advisory Group, 2024 ABKB 375, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench tackled a contentious issue in employment and business law: the enforceability of restrictive covenants, particularly non-acceptance clauses. A key point of contention was whether a non-acceptance clause needed geographic limitations to be enforceable. The court ultimately concluded that, despite the employer’s arguments, the clause functioned as a non-competition clause and was invalid for lack of a geographic restriction.
Background
People Corporation acquired Lane Quinn Benefit Consultants Ltd. (LQBC) in 2018, relying on restrictive covenants in the Executive Employment Agreement (EEA) with the principal, Jay Quinn. Among these covenants was a “non-acceptance clause,” which barred Quinn from providing services to, accepting business from, or catering to the company’s clients and prospective clients after his departure.
Quinn later established Quinn Advisory Group (QAG), a direct competitor, and People Corporation alleged breaches of these covenants. In its application for an injunction, the employer argued that the non-acceptance clause did not require a geographic limitation to be enforceable.
The Employer’s Argument
People Corporation maintained that the non-acceptance clause:
1. Was different from a non-competition clause because it did not explicitly prevent competition but merely prohibited Quinn from servicing specific categories of clients.
2. Did not require geographic restrictions under the reasoning in Payette v. Guay, where the Supreme Court of Canada upheld non-solicitation clauses without territorial limits in certain commercial contexts.
The employer further argued that the clause was reasonable in scope and necessary to protect its legitimate interests in preserving client relationships.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Simard rejected the employer’s argument, finding that the non-acceptance clause was, in essence, a non-competition clause. Key reasons included:
1. Substantive Effect of the Clause: The court emphasized that the clause prohibited Quinn from competing indirectly by barring him from accepting business from former or prospective clients, even if those clients approached him voluntarily. This effectively restricted Quinn’s ability to operate in the same industry, making the clause functionally equivalent to a non-competition restriction.
2. Lack of Geographic Limitations: Unlike a non-solicitation clause, a non-competition clause requires clear geographic limitations to be enforceable. The court highlighted that the non-acceptance clause applied globally, far beyond the areas where People Corporation or its subsidiary LQBC conducted business. This lack of specificity rendered the clause overly broad and unreasonable.
3. Public Policy Considerations: The court noted that while restrictive covenants in commercial agreements can receive more latitude, they must still balance fairness and the public interest. The absence of geographic restrictions in a clause functioning as a non-competition agreement was deemed excessive and contrary to public policy.
Key Findings
• Broad Scope of Non-Acceptance Clause: By barring Quinn from servicing clients irrespective of solicitation, the clause went beyond protecting legitimate business interests and unduly restrained competition.
• Geographic Restrictions as a Necessity: Non-competition clauses, even when embedded in commercial agreements, must include reasonable geographic limitations tied to the area of business operations. The court found the clause unenforceable due to its unlimited territorial scope.
• Severance Not an Option: The court refused to rewrite the clause by imposing a geographic limitation, stating that judicial modification would exceed its role.
Lessons for Employers and Legal Drafting
1. Clarity in Covenant Design: Employers must clearly differentiate between non-acceptance, non-solicitation, and non-competition clauses. If a clause effectively restricts competition, it must comply with legal requirements for enforceability, including geographic limits.
2. Geographic and Temporal Limits: When drafting restrictive covenants, include reasonable geographic and time restrictions that align with the business’s operational scope. Overly broad terms risk invalidation.
3. Protecting Legitimate Interests: Restrictive covenants should focus on protecting specific business interests, such as client relationships or trade secrets, rather than unduly restraining competition.
Conclusion
The decision in People Corporation v. Quinn Advisory Group reinforces the principle that the enforceability of restrictive covenants depends on their substance, not their label. Employers seeking to protect their business must carefully craft covenants to balance their interests with legal and public policy considerations. When a clause functions as a non-competition agreement, geographic restrictions are not optional—they are essential.
DISCLAIMER: This article is presented for informational purposes only. The views expressed are solely the author(s)’ and should not be attributed to any other party, including Taylor McCaffrey LLP. While care is taken to ensure accuracy, before relying upon the information in this article you should seek and be guided by legal advice based on your specific circumstances. The information in this article does not constitute legal advice or solicitation and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Any unsolicited information sent to the author(s) cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.
If you would like legal advice, kindly contact the author(s) directly or the firm's Chief Operating Officer at pknapp@tmlawyers.com, or 204.988.0356.
Related Areas
Related Articles, News & Resources
See All Related Resources
About the Author
Peter Mueller
Partner
204.988.0316
pmueller@tmlawyers.com
pmueller@tmlawyers.com
Peter is passionate about his work in the Labour & Employment Law field. He is regularly sought after by employers and human resource professionals for his litigation expertise as well as his counsel on day-to-day human resource matters. Peter’s advocacy experience includes acting as the lead negotiator for management in collective bargaining, defending wrongful dismissal lawsuits, and advising clients operating in both non-unionized and unionized workplaces dealing with grievances and arbitrations under collective agreements.