2. Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc., 2009 SCC 6 (CanLII) Shafron sold his insurance agency to KRG and was subsequently employed by its successor, KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. Each employment contract contained a restrictive covenant whereby Shafron agreed that for three years after leaving his employment, he would not work for an insurance brokerage within the "Metropolitan City of Vancouver." When he left the respondent company and began working as an insurance salesman for another agency in Richmond, BC, KRG Western commenced an action to enforce the restrictive covenant. The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the term "Metropolitan City of Vancouver" in the restrictive covenant was neither clear, certain, nor reasonable. The trial decision was reversed on appeal. The appeal court agreed that the term "Metropolitan City of Vancouver" was ambiguous; however, it severed that term and held that the term means the "City of Vancouver, the University of British Columbia Endowment Lands, Richmond and Burnaby." By working in Richmond, Shafron was in violation of this reworded covenant. Did the Court of Appeal essentially rectify the contract? Is rectification an appropriate remedy where a contractual term is ambiguous? What if Shafron contends he never imagined that he was being restricted from working outside Vancouver? What arguments can he raise to challenge enforcement of the restrictive covenant?
2. Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc., 2009 SCC 6 (CanLII) Shafron sold his insurance agency to KRG and was subsequently employed by its successor, KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. Each employment contract contained a restrictive covenant whereby Shafron agreed that for three years after leaving his employment, he would not work for an insurance brokerage within the "Metropolitan City of Vancouver." When he left the respondent company and began working as an insurance salesman for another agency in Richmond, BC, KRG Western commenced an action to enforce the restrictive covenant. The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the term "Metropolitan City of Vancouver" in the restrictive covenant was neither clear, certain, nor reasonable. The trial decision was reversed on appeal. The appeal court agreed that the term "Metropolitan City of Vancouver" was ambiguous; however, it severed that term and held that the term means the "City of Vancouver, the University of British Columbia Endowment Lands, Richmond and Burnaby." By working in Richmond, Shafron was in violation of this reworded covenant. Did the Court of Appeal essentially rectify the contract? Is rectification an appropriate remedy where a contractual term is ambiguous? What if Shafron contends he never imagined that he was being restricted from working outside Vancouver? What arguments can he raise to challenge enforcement of the restrictive covenant?
Chapter1: Taking Risks And Making Profits Within The Dynamic Business Environment
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1CE
Related questions
Question
100%
Transcribed Image Text:2. Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc.,
2009 SCC 6 (CanLII)
Shafron sold his insurance agency to KRG and was subsequently employed by
its successor, KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. Each employment contract
contained a restrictive covenant whereby Shafron agreed that for three years
after leaving his employment, he would not work for an insurance brokerage
within the "Metropolitan City of Vancouver." When he left the respondent
company and began working as an insurance salesman for another agency in
Richmond, BC, KRG Western commenced an action to enforce the restrictive
covenant. The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the term
"Metropolitan City of Vancouver" in the restrictive covenant was neither clear,
certain, nor reasonable. The trial decision was reversed on appeal. The appeal
court agreed that the term "Metropolitan City of Vancouver" was ambiguous;
however, it severed that term and held that the term means the "City of
Vancouver, the University of British Columbia Endowment Lands, Richmond
and Burnaby." By working in Richmond, Shafron was in violation of this
reworded covenant.
Did the Court of Appeal essentially rectify the contract? Is rectification an
appropriate remedy where a contractual term is ambiguous? What if Shafron
contends he never imagined that he was being restricted from working outside
Vancouver? What arguments can he raise to challenge enforcement of the
restrictive covenant?
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:
9781259929434
Author:
William Nickels
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:
9780134527604
Author:
Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:
PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract…
Management
ISBN:
9781305947412
Author:
Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:
9781259929434
Author:
William Nickels
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:
9780134527604
Author:
Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:
PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract…
Management
ISBN:
9781305947412
Author:
Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi…
Management
ISBN:
9780135191798
Author:
Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:
PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in…
Management
ISBN:
9780134728391
Author:
Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:
PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:
9780134237473
Author:
Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:
PEARSON