Are non-compete clauses standard in Canada? I have received my contract and it has a 6 month unpaid non-compete clause. This would effectively bar me from doing the same role for any other employer in Canada for 6-months after leaving the firm.
Do firms pay signing on bonuses to cover the 6 month period?

I expect it depends on the business. In computing, it's usual.

Signing bonuses are, I believe, common in baseball. Are you a waver of the big glove? If not, then no.

I've never played baseball, but could give it a go once I move over.

I have heard of a non-compete clause where you can't poach clients from the company you are leaving, but preventing you from joining a company in the same industry? Wow.

It is not unusual in certain industries, in NA and the UK. Level of seniority is often a factor.

That is my new thing learnt for today.

One of my previous employers had a non-compete clause for Canada and after some basic research it was clear that it would not hold up as it would be considered overly broad. Have a read of: https://www.lexology.com/library/det...2-d44768ba9d33

My partner works in the restoration industry and these are standard on his contracts, however after being threatened to be sued by a previous company he left and then went to another company (he didn’t take any of there business) he will cross that clause out in the contract and refuse to sign.

I believe some of his said 6 months to a year he could not move to a competitor but people have to make a living and things don’t work out at one company you are gonna go somewhere else.

They're standard in technology.

However they are very hard to enforce in a court of law (well certainly an Ontario one) as you have a right to earn a living.

Also you are not obliged to tell people where you are going so they'd have no idea of your next move anyway.

I once made a company change wording on it in negotiation. You may want to get an employment lawyer to give it the once over.

This is correct as a matter of general principle, but restraints can be more or less enforceable depending on how they are drafted. A common way of ensuring at least some enforceability is to draft restraints as a "cascade" or "ladder", where there are successive reductions in the duration and geographic scope, with the longer periods and larger places expressed to be severable if not enforceable. In this way, a six month restraint in the whole world (unlikely to be enforceable) could become an enforceable three month restraint in one province.

Pure restraints on earning a living are hard to enforce particularly if you're not that senior. However, restraints tied to use of confidential information of your employer (eg, customer lists etc) will be more readily enforced in the common law world. The fine print will matter.

Having an employment lawyer provide some advice is good counsel (particularly if the role you're taking on is a senior role).

I don't think there's much value in that. I don't think the enforceability of such clauses really matters, getting a judgement on a dispute is going to take a year and a hundred grand so, unless you're interested in recreational litigation, legal action is a non-starter. What matters is whether or not the parties involved believe the clause would stand up in court and whether or not they wish to abide by it.

The approach I would take is not to mention the clause in an old contract to a new employer. If the old employer has funds and spite they might litigate but it's not probable except in the case of flagrant violation such as swapping pimps while on a continuing contract.

If a clause is so restrictive as to try and prevent one earning a living, there may be an argument, but at what financial cost? If a clause has a narrower geographic boundary it can become more enforceable. Large employers have the resources to fight and hold things up in court, many others have insurance to cover such actions.

If a contract is entered into freely, knowing the conditions of employment, one takes the choice to sign up or not.

I would have a lawyer look over a contract before signing it, especially one that could have a significant impact on me. A few hundred dollars is a small price to pay in my opinion.

I had one in my last job in the UK, but it required the company to pay you the lost salary if you couldn't take the job for six months (or whatever the time period was).

I don't think it was ever enforced because it would have cost too much. But I can see they might have gone for it if one of the most senior guys left.

A friend of mine was leaving a company, and HR and Legal wanted a word with them about it. Apparently they were not sure if they would allow them to go to the other company as it did happen to have a competing product, however they'd not be working with anything to do with that product.

My friend was more than a little amused at this, and seemed to enjoy informing them that if they wished to continue this foolishness, then on their heads be it.

Unsurprisingly, nothing came of it.


I could understand things if you're switching from Company X and will be working on the same product at Company Y. Trade secrets and all that. Same thing if you were considering "encouraging" a few rather good clients to switch from Company X to Company Y.

It's common in my industry too (oil & gas, renewable energy) but almost never enforced. Might be different if you're actually developing new technology, or taking genuine innovation from one employer to another. But simply for everyday job-hopping? That will never go to court.