Dent Wizard Canada Ltd. v. Anderson,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Rideout, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2008 NBQB 110
• Date: 10 March 2008
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)

Dent Wizard Can. Ltd. v. Anderson (2008), 329 N.B.R.(2d) 219 (TD);

    329 R.N.-B.(2e) 219; 844 A.P.R. 219

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.035

Renvoi temp.: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.035

Dent Wizard Canada (plaintiff) v. Joshua D'White Anderson (defendant)

(M/C/283-07; 2008 NBQB 110; 2008 NBBR 110)

Indexed As: Dent Wizard Canada Ltd. v. Anderson

Répertorié: Dent Wizard Canada Ltd. v. Anderson

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Rideout, J.

March 17, 2008.

Summary:

Résumé:

The plaintiff and its parent corporation entered into an employment contract with the defendant (Anderson). The contract covered a number of matters including confidentiality and non-competition. Anderson terminated the employment relationship and subsequently went into an allegedly competing business. The plaintiff and the parent corporation sued Anderson in Missouri (USA), claiming breaches of the employment contract including the secrecy and non-compete provisions. Later, the plaintiff sued Anderson in New Brunswick, claiming breaches of the same employment contract. The Missouri action was settled. Anderson sought summary judgment staying or dismissing the New Brunswick action on the basis of res judicata and/or issue estoppel.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted summary judgment.

Editor's Note: for related cases involving these parties see [2007] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 65 (T.D.) and [2007] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 70 (C.A.).

Estoppel - Topic 381

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - In civil proceedings - The plaintiff and its parent corporation entered into an employment contract with the defendant (Anderson) - The contract covered a number of matters including confidentiality and non-competition. Anderson terminated the employment relationship and subsequently went into an allegedly competing business - The plaintiff and the parent corporation sued Anderson in Missouri (USA), claiming breaches of the employment contract including the secrecy and non-compete provisions - Later, the plaintiff sued Anderson in New Brunswick, claiming breaches of the same employment contract - The Missouri action was settled - Anderson sought summary judgment staying or dismissing the New Brunswick action on the basis of res judicata - The plaintiff argued that its action concerned a different clause of the employment agreement and therefore the settlement was not applicable to the New Brunswick action - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, rejected the plaintiff's argument and granted summary judgment - The settlement involved a determination of the same question or questions as that to be decided in the New Brunswick litigation - The same parties were involved - The other required elements for res judicata were also established.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See Estoppel - Topic 381 ].

Préclusion - Cote 381

Préclusion par chose jugée - Exception de la chose jugée opposée aux procédures ultérieures - Instances civiles - [Voir Estoppel - Topic 381 ].

Préclusion - Cote 386

Préclusion par chose jugée - Exception de la chose jugée opposée aux procédures ultérieures - Questions tranchées dans des procédures antérieures - [Voir Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bullen, Re (1971), 21 D.L.R.(3d) 628 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

McNichol v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (2006), 298 N.B.R.(2d) 44; 775 A.P.R. 44 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

351694 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Paccar of Canada Ltd. et al., [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 896; 2004 FC 1442, refd to. [para. 21].

Comeau et al. v. Breau et al. (1994), 145 N.B.R.(2d) 329; 372 A.P.R. 329; 1994 CanLII 4469 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Wilson v. Servier Canada Inc. et al., [2003] O.T.C. Uned. 56; 2003 CanLII 32375 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

Cannon v. Lange et al. (1998), 203 N.B.R.(2d) 121; 518 A.P.R. 121 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Ronald J. LeBlanc, Q.C., on behalf of the plaintiff;

M. Shane Dugas, on behalf of the defendant.

This motion was heard on March 10, 2008, by Rideout, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Moncton, who delivered the following decision on March 17, 2008.