Quote:
Originally Posted by McG
while i am no lawyer, my understanding is that canadian courts really frown on these agreements restricting people from earning a living. One of the challenges, as others have noted, is that a person may have huge knowledge or skillz. however, if a person gets packaged out and gets 4 months salary in lieu, i am not sure that you can be asked not to work for 12 months.
someone suggested legal advice; that's a good suggestion. i would always think about the spirit and the letter of the contract; is the company really looking to stop you working? maybe, maybe not. sometimes everyone just wants to protect everything.
i say, protect yourself.
|
That's a good summary.
The rest of my post is information and not advice. Do not rely on a message board post for legal advice. Details will be missed.
This is a really complicated area of the law, partially because lots of people sign them but courts don't like them-- they restrict trade.
The real issue is, what will you learn by working there that would represent an unfair detriment to your employer should you leave to work for a competitor.
Also, often times employees will form relationships with clients, and those relationships develop only because of their position with their employer.
If you are in sales for example, and are put into direct contact with your employer's customers, and have signed a non-competition agreement (and more importantly, a non-solicitation agreement) and then decide to jump to a competitor for better pay, you might have a problem-- and will have a problem if you use the contacts you developed from your former employer to bring business to your new employer.
If, through your employment you are taught a skill and that training is not available elsewhere, it is also more likely that a non-comp will be upheld. That is a rare factual circumstance however.
The language in the non-comp or non-solicitation agreement is really important, and if it is over-reaching there is a pretty good chance a court will ignore it instead of reading it down to something more reasonable.
You should avoid signing one whenever possible.
People really need to get legal advice on this in advance, but it rarely happens. The end result is, litigators get more work. Advice before hand is inexpensive and cost effective. Litigation after the fact can be brutally expensive.
Edit: Vlad's posts are also really good