Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Validity and territorial reasonableness of the non-competition clause under art. 2089 C.c.Q. given its wide geographic scope over two large administrative regions
• Impact of the employee’s return from a supervisory role to a non-supervisory chauffeur position on the continued enforceability and consideration for restrictive covenants
• Insufficiency of concrete evidence of actual or imminent competition, client solicitation, or misuse of confidential information to establish serious or irreparable harm
• Failure to demonstrate the level of “911-style” urgency required for a provisional interlocutory injunction, particularly in light of the employer’s delay in moving the motion
• Weight given to sworn statements from the employee and new employer that his current duties are operational and do not leverage alleged strategic information
• Application of cumulative criteria for provisional injunctions (urgency, appearance of right, serious or irreparable prejudice, balance of convenience), with doubt on appearance of right leading to refusal of relief

Facts and contractual background
Villéco inc. operates in the management and valorization of residual materials in the Québec City and Chaudière-Appalaches regions. It employed Francis Daigle-Boucher from March 2019 to January 2026 in various roles: trans-roulier (roll-off) truck driver, dispatcher, and notably supervisor of operations. In June 2023, when he became supervisor of operations, Villéco and Daigle-Boucher signed an employment contract that included several restrictive covenants: a non-competition clause, a specific restriction on working as a public contracts manager in the same sector, confidentiality, intellectual property, and non-solicitation of clients, suppliers, and employees, all anchored to his supervisory role and associated benefits, including an annual salary around $75,000. In September 2025, Daigle-Boucher returned to the position of trans-roulier driver and no longer performed the functions of supervisor of operations. There was no new written contract for the chauffeur role, unlike the previous written contracts for dispatcher and supervisor. This change in position later became central to the analysis of whether the non-competition obligations from the supervisory contract continued to bind him after his role changed. In January 2026, Daigle-Boucher informed Villéco that he would resign effective 29 January 2026 to join Gaudreau Environnement inc., a competitor in the same waste management sector, as a “superviseur transport” (transport supervisor). Villéco reacted by sending a demand letter and then seeking urgent court relief to prevent what it characterized as a violation of the non-competition and related clauses.

Policy terms and restrictive clauses at issue
The core policy-type terms in dispute were the restrictive covenants embedded in the June 2023 supervisory employment contract (referred to as piece P-4). The general non-competition clause provided that for the duration of employment and for 12 months after termination for any reason, the employee would not, directly or indirectly, in any capacity (including as shareholder, associate, consultant, employee, officer, etc.), perform functions similar to those exercised for Villéco, or engage in the business of services in the sector of residual materials management. This sector expressly included container and compactor rental or purchase, collection and transport, and the operation of ecocentres and dry-material sorting centres, within the territory of the Québec metropolitan community (administrative region 03) and Chaudière-Appalaches (region 12). A separate clause prohibited, for the same 12-month period, acting as a public contract manager for any enterprise operating in Villéco’s sector of activity in those same territories. The contract also contained confidentiality obligations, provisions on ownership of creations, and non-solicitation of clients, suppliers and employees, as well as a stipulation that any breach would cause serious or irreparable prejudice likely to render a final judgment ineffective, justifying recourse to provisional, interlocutory and permanent injunctions in addition to damages. These clauses had to be assessed under article 2089 of the Civil Code of Québec, which requires that post-employment non-competition clauses be limited in time, territory and type of work to what is necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, and places the burden of proving validity on the employer. The court also noted article 1371 C.c.Q. on the need for “cause” (consideration) in contractual obligations, which is relevant to whether the restrictive covenants still had a valid counterpart once the employee left his supervisory role and returned to a non-contractual chauffeur position.

Procedural posture and relief sought
Villéco brought a motion for a provisional interlocutory injunction under articles 510 and 511 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It asked the Superior Court to order, for a 10-day period, that Daigle-Boucher comply with the non-competition clause, cease working for Gaudreau in functions similar to those he had performed at Villéco within the protected territory, and respect confidentiality, intellectual property, and all non-solicitation clauses. Villéco also sought an order against Gaudreau Environnement inc. to cease participating directly or indirectly in any breach of the non-competition obligation, including by terminating Daigle-Boucher’s employment as supervisor. The motion was framed as urgent, and Villéco supported it with sworn declarations from its president (Philippe Miville), operations director (David Berthelot), and human resources director (Patrick Sirois), seeking to establish an appearance of right, serious or irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of convenience.

Legal framework for provisional interlocutory injunction
The court reviewed articles 510 and 511 C.p.c., which govern interlocutory and provisional injunctions. A provisional interlocutory injunction, particularly one granted before full adversarial debate, is exceptional and discretionary; it requires cumulative proof of (1) urgency, (2) appearance of right, (3) serious or irreparable prejudice, and (4) a balance of inconvenience favouring the applicant. Jurisprudence cited by the judge stresses that these criteria are cumulative—if one is missing, the application must generally be dismissed absent exceptional circumstances—and that, given the exceptional nature of provisional relief, any real doubt should lead to refusal. The judge emphasized that urgency is “predominant,” especially at the provisional stage, sometimes described in case law as “style 911” urgency: the risk must be immediate and apparent, such that the rights at issue would be irretrievably lost or seriously affected if the court waited for a regular interlocutory hearing. The applicant must show it acted diligently once it became aware of the alleged breach; a lack of diligence can be fatal to the claim of urgency.

Evidence on urgency, harm, and alleged misuse of information
Villéco argued that Daigle-Boucher, as supervisor of operations, had access to strategic information: internal cost structures, margins, operational capacity, resource allocation, and pricing per territory and contract. Its president, in his sworn declaration, explained in conditional terms how such access could enable a competitor to tailor bids, undercut pricing, and reorganize operations to capture significant market share, leading to contract losses and a substantial financial impact. However, Villéco’s allegations and supporting affidavits did not identify any specific act of actual competition, any concrete solicitation of its clients, or any demonstrated or imminent loss of contracts attributable to Daigle-Boucher’s move to Gaudreau. Nor did they show that he had actually used “highly confidential” information in his new position. On the other side, Daigle-Boucher’s own declaration stated that in his previous role as supervisor he did not design or organize drivers’ collection routes, did not participate in drafting bids, and did not solicit new clients. He asserted he had never knowingly accessed the specific detailed strategic documents mentioned by Villéco and had received no training on them, and that, after more than five months back as a driver, he would be unable to recall such data in any actionable way even if he had once seen it. He also recounted being verbally informed of his demotion back to chauffeur and the circumstances of that change. Gaudreau’s human resources director, Émilie St-Onge, described Daigle-Boucher’s current role as “superviseur au transport” as essentially field-based and operational: supervising eight drivers, resolving issues during collection, monitoring the smooth running and fluidity of daily routes, spending most of his time on the road in patrol, and helping ensure collections are completed. She affirmed that Gaudreau neither uses nor could realistically use any strategic information allegedly acquired by him to obtain a competitive advantage over Villéco. Faced with these competing affidavits, the court found that Villéco had not established a concrete, imminent event or harm that required immediate intervention before a regular interlocutory hearing.

Findings on urgency, delay, and serious prejudice
The court concluded that Villéco had not met the stringent urgency threshold for a provisional interlocutory injunction. While Daigle-Boucher notified Villéco on 22 January 2026 that he would join Gaudreau the following week, Villéco only brought its motion for presentation on 20 February 2026, after a delay of about 22 days, including a postponement by consent. Villéco noted that it only learned on 5 February 2026 that Gaudreau would not comply with its demand letter, but the judge held that this did not excuse the overall lack of prompt action: it was up to Villéco to move quickly to protect its interests. The absence of a specific imminent breach (such as a pending tender, targeted client approach, or concrete use of confidential pricing data) undermined the claim of “911-style” urgency and also weakened the assertions of serious or irreparable harm and a decisive balance of inconvenience. Since the court was not convinced that Villéco’s rights would be irreparably lost or seriously affected if the matter proceeded on the ordinary interlocutory timetable, the request for exceptional provisional relief could not be justified.

Doubts about validity and scope of the non-competition clause
Although it was unnecessary to fully analyze the merits at the provisional stage once urgency was found lacking, the court nonetheless commented on the appearance of right because the defendants had raised substantial objections. First, they contested the validity of the non-competition clause under article 2089 C.c.Q., focusing on its territorial scope and proportionality. The clause covered the entire Québec metropolitan community and Chaudière-Appalaches (regions 03 and 12), together amounting to more than 33,000 square kilometres. The judge compared this to prior case law, such as Ikon Solutions de bureau inc. c. Docu-Plus, where a territory of about 31,400 square kilometres based on a 100-kilometre radius had been held “exorbitant and excessive” for a non-competition covenant, especially in light of the employee’s functions. By analogy, the judge suggested that Villéco’s clause might similarly be overly broad territory-wise for the type of work Daigle-Boucher was performing. Second, the judge highlighted that the assessment of necessity “as to the kind of work” under article 2089 C.c.Q. required a close look at his actual supervisory tasks: integrating and training drivers, supervising teams in the field, inspecting and verifying routes, checking uncollected containers and damaged property, monitoring incidents and truck breakdowns, real-time tracking of operations and resource needs, liaising with city inspectors on problematic cases, assisting dispatch, occasionally driving heavy trucks, and performing other related field projects and data-collection tasks. This job description suggested a role that was heavily operational and field-oriented rather than focused on strategic pricing or contractual negotiation.

Impact of demotion and loss of contractual counterpart
A further, and potentially decisive, source of doubt regarding appearance of right concerned the effect of Daigle-Boucher’s demotion and return to a chauffeur position in September 2025. The court noted that the restrictive covenants were expressly linked to the supervisory employment contract, which itself acknowledged a specific counterpart: the employment in that role and the associated financial advantages. When he returned to the chauffeur role, no new written contract was signed; by contrast, there were written contracts for dispatcher and supervisor posts. Under article 1371 C.c.Q., a contractual obligation must have a cause or counterpart that justifies its existence. At first glance, the judge considered that the counterpart for the supervisory-based non-competition had disappeared—or at least become questionable—once he ceased being supervisor and performed only chauffeur duties without a new contract containing restrictive terms. This raised the legal question of whether he remained bound by the prior restrictive covenants after he no longer enjoyed the conditions that justified them. The judge found that, at the provisional stage, this issue created real doubt over the enforceability of the non-competition and non-solicitation clauses as against Daigle-Boucher at the time of his departure to Gaudreau.

Outcome and implications
Given the failure to prove predominant urgency and the significant doubts surrounding the validity, proportionality, and continued enforceability of the non-competition and related clauses, the Superior Court refused to grant the requested provisional interlocutory injunction. The application by Villéco inc. for an order compelling Daigle-Boucher to comply with the restrictive covenants and obliging Gaudreau Environnement inc. to cease employing him in a supervisory capacity was dismissed, with the issue of costs left to be decided later. As a result, at this provisional stage, the successful parties are the defendants, Francis Daigle-Boucher and Gaudreau Environnement inc., and no monetary award, damages, or quantified costs are granted in their favour in this judgment; the total amount ordered in their favour cannot be determined from this decision because “frais de justice” are expressly stated to be left to follow.