Enforceability of Non-Compete Clauses in British Columbia Employment Law

While the province of Ontario has amended their Employment Standards legislation to ban non-competition clauses as of October, 2021, non-competition clauses are still legal according to British Columbia employment law.

However, courts take a strict approach to these clauses, requiring parties that seek to rely on a non-competition clause to draft their clause carefully, and with reasonable terms.

A non-compete clause effectively restricts the activities that an employee can carry out – even when they are no longer employed at all or being paid.  It is for this reason that courts are wary to enforce non-compete clauses, unless they are drafted carefully so as not to be unduly restrictive or unfair.

While employment law is essentially the law of contract, the special nature of the employment relationship means that the courts and law makers pay special attention to ensure there is an appropriate balance between the rights of employees and the requirements of employers.

In one of the leading Canadian cases on restrictive covenants, Elsley v. J.G. Collins Insurance Agencies Ltd., the Supreme Court of Canada wrote that the “public interest” must be considered when deciding whether such a clause is enforceable:

A covenant in restraint of trade is enforceable only if it is reasonable between the parties and with reference to the public interest. As in many of the cases which come before the courts, competing demands must be weighed. There is an important public interest in discouraging restraints on trade, and maintaining free and open competition unencumbered by the fetters of restrictive covenants. On the other hand, the courts have been disinclined to restrict the right to contract, particularly when that right has been exercised by knowledgeable persons of equal bargaining power.

In deciding whether it is in the public interest to enforce a restrictive covenant, the courts will consider:

  1. The nature of the employer’s interest, and whether it is entitled to protection;
  2. The temporal and spatial restrictions on the employee; and
  3. Whether the clause prevents the employee from competing generally, or whether it is limited to preventing solicitation of the employer’s business.

Generally, the courts will be more likely to enforce a “non-solicitation” clause, which precludes the employee from soliciting the employer’s business, than it will a non-compete clause, which restricts the employee generally from competing.  Courts will also pay special attention to the scope of the clause – a clause that is limited to a specific geographical area, and is limited for a reasonable period of time, is more likely to be enforced.

Employers seeking to include a non-compete clause in their contract ought to seek legal advice from an employment lawyer before doing so.  Because these clauses are subject to challenge in the courts, careful drafting is required.


A Cautionary Note

This article provides only an overview of an employment law topic and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

About the Author

Avatar photo

Written by W. Eric Pedersen

W. Eric Pedersen is a Managing Partner at Velletta Pedersen Christie. Mr. Pedersen regularly advises individuals and businesses on employment, human rights, labour, and debtor creditor law. Eric studied law at the University of Victoria, where he was awarded the Gowlings Prize in Intellectual Property and Technology Law. Mr. Pedersen has appeared in Supreme Court, Provincial Court, and the BC Court of Appeal, and has established himself as an effective advocate for individuals and businesses seeking to resolve disputes and achieve justice.