Edward Jones v. Voldeng et al. 2012 BCCA 295
Injunctions - Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - General principles respecting grant of interlocutory or interim injunction
An investment advisor and his assistant left their employment at a national brokerage firm and joined a competitor. The brokerage firm sued the investment advisor, his assistant and the competitor. The brokerage firm alleged that the investment advisor breached a restrictive covenant in his employment agreement by soliciting the firm’s customers. The firm applied for an interlocutory injunction.
The British Columbia Supreme Court Supreme Court, in a decision reported  B.C.T.C. Uned. 497, granted the interlocutory injunction restraining the investment advisor from soliciting the brokerage firm’s clients (paras. 1 and 2) and restraining all the defendants from using, copying, disclosing or conveying any non-public information which the advisor and his assistant learned or acquired during their employment with the brokerage firm, etc. (paragraphs 3 and 4). The brokerage firm appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The court held that the chambers judge erred in determining that the brokerage firm would suffer irreparable harm by the investment advisor improperly soliciting his former clients and erred in prohibiting him from any contact with his former clients. The court varied the chambers judge’s order by deleting the paragraphs 1 and 2, and left the remainder undisturbed.