This post drills into the court’s exercise of remedial flexibility for breach of confidence and trade secret claims. It analyzes the GasTOPS Ltd. v. Forsyth and Equustek Solutions Inc. v Jack cases to examine the interplay between pre-trial injunctions obtained in the wake of discovering misappropriating activity and the final relief available at trial. The Equustek decision is notable in that it opens a window to obtaining both ongoing injunctive relief and an enforceable monetary judgment, at least where defendants fail to comply with pre-trial injunction orders.
Granting an injunction remedy that orders someone to do or refrain from doing a specific act is a hallmark of a property right, including in intellectual property. Yet for trade secrets and confidential information, Canadian courts take a “flexible and imaginative approach” to selecting the legal remedy – meaning that trade secrets may or may not be treated like intellectual property in this sense. This post explores why, in practice, the courts tend to be reluctant to grant an injunction prohibiting misappropriating behaviour after too much time has passed. As a result, asserting proprietary rights to a trade secret typically requires seeking a pre-trial injunction shortly after detecting the wrongdoing.