Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The defendant retained and misused confidential business information from his former employer after termination.

• An interlocutory injunction and Anton Piller order were sought to prevent ongoing reputational and commercial harm.

• Evidence showed the defendant harassed the plaintiff and used aliases to contact clients and defame the company.

• The defendant admitted to downloading proprietary data and acknowledged engaging in the alleged misconduct.

• The court found a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and risk of destruction of evidence.

• Elevated costs were awarded due to egregious post-termination behavior and litigation misconduct.

Employment background and breakdown
Jamil Manji was employed by CleanMark Group Inc. from October 2021 until his termination without cause in April 2024. During his employment, he held a senior role managing the company’s most critical accounts, including Apple and Best Buy, which together contributed the majority of CleanMark’s revenue. Upon termination, Mr. Manji was provided severance in compliance with Ontario's Employment Standards Act and signed a full and final release of claims.

Following the termination, the plaintiffs—CleanMark and its executive, Athanasia ("Soula") Bougiotis—alleged that Mr. Manji engaged in a campaign of harassment and misconduct, including the misuse of confidential company information. The plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Manji retained and downloaded CleanMark's sensitive data and used it to contact and disparage the company and its employees, particularly Ms. Bougiotis, with whom he had previously worked closely.

Allegations of harassment and misuse of data
The court found that Mr. Manji contacted Ms. Bougiotis excessively via multiple phone numbers and email accounts, even after being asked to stop. Despite receiving a cease-and-desist letter and a warning from the Toronto Police, he continued to send harassing messages and eventually began using aliases to post defamatory messages online and contact CleanMark’s clients, including Apple and Best Buy. The emails sent to clients contained internal information only available to him during his employment and offered to disclose further proprietary data.

The evidence included a disturbing pattern of obsessive communication, threats, impersonation, and defamatory campaigns, which had a serious impact on Ms. Bougiotis’ mental health and CleanMark’s business operations. Google even shut down CleanMark’s business profile due to the volume of fake negative reviews allegedly submitted by Mr. Manji.

Legal tests and court analysis
Justice Merritt applied the legal tests for both interlocutory injunctions (as per RJR-MacDonald Inc.) and Anton Piller orders (as per Celanese Canada Inc.). The court found that CleanMark and Ms. Bougiotis met all criteria:

• A strong prima facie case was established based on clear evidence that Mr. Manji possessed and misused confidential data.

• Irreparable harm was presumed due to the misuse of trade secrets and the personal impact on Ms. Bougiotis.

• The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs, given the risk of further harm to CleanMark’s client relationships and brand.

• The risk of destruction of evidence was inferred from Mr. Manji’s use of aliases and deceptive behavior.

The court also rejected Mr. Manji’s argument that the Anton Piller order violated his Charter rights, clarifying that no state action was involved in this private civil dispute.

Court’s order and outcome
Justice Merritt granted both the interlocutory injunction and Anton Piller order. Mr. Manji was ordered to:

• Return and delete all CleanMark confidential information.

• Cease using such information to harass or defame the plaintiffs.

• Surrender his laptop to an independent supervising solicitor for 10 business days to facilitate secure data deletion.

The court emphasized that Mr. Manji’s conduct—harassment, misuse of company data, and refusal to cooperate—was egregious and unjustifiable.

Costs and conclusion
Due to the defendant’s behavior, the court awarded elevated costs in the amount of $34,570.15, citing the need to indemnify the plaintiffs and sanction Mr. Manji’s litigation tactics and persistent misconduct. The ruling underscores the court’s willingness to protect businesses and individuals from harassment and misuse of confidential information after the employment relationship ends.