IN THE MOOT APPEAL COURT
NAME OF COLLEGE
Hi Tech Systems
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
|Place and Date of Judgment: |Kelowna, British Columbia |
|24 November 2008 |
Reasons for Judgment
 We address two main questions as a result of the arguments raised in the Court of Appeals:
a) Is the employment agreement binding and enforceable upon Mr. Newton?
b) Is the non-competition clause valid and enforceable upon Mr. Newton?
We find that the argument of the appellant in regards to duress and slander are not considered factors in this case. As well, the arguments of the respondent concerning fiduciary duty do not apply.
 In answer to the appellant’s argument that Mr. Newton should have read the contract before signing and therefore understood clauses 5 and 9, we find that it is irrelevant that Mr. Newton did not read the contract before signing it because Hi-Tech, the employer was in breach of the contract under the terms of clause 5 and 9, whether it was signed or not.
 Furthermore, the implementation of the new CEO’s policy concerning commissions and share options resulted in the ‘constructive dismissal’ of Mr. Newton. Constructive dismissal was discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Farber v. Royal Trust Co. 1997, in paragraph 24:
“Where an employer decides unilaterally to make substantial changes to the essential terms of an employee’s contract of employment and the employee does not agree to the changes and leaves his or her job, the employee has not resigned, but has been dismissed. (This is referred to as constructive dismissal). By unilaterally seeking to make substantial changes to the essential terms of the contract, the employer is ceasing to meet its...