Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff sought a provisional injunction to stop a former employee from engaging in activities that allegedly breached contractual non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality obligations.
• At issue was whether the defendant violated post-employment clauses under his employment contract and the duty of loyalty under article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec.
• Confidential information accessed by the defendant during his employment — including pricing, costs, and work methods specific to the Sayona mining site — was alleged to have been used for the benefit of a competitor.
• Prima facie evidence showed that the defendant participated, on behalf of his new employer Beluga Construction inc., in preparing a bid that secured a contract related to the same strategic client, Sayona.
• Urgency was established given that the competing activities were ongoing and the non-competition clause was limited to one year, making prompt judicial intervention necessary.
• The court found a serious risk of irreparable harm, including potential disclosure of strategic information and loss of competitive advantage that would be difficult to quantify in damages.

Facts of the case

L. Fournier & Fils inc. is a construction company that developed specialized expertise in mining operations at the Sayona (Lithium Amérique du Nord inc.) mine site in La Corne. The defendant, Jason Bertrand-Brochu, began working for the plaintiff in 2019 as a project manager, primarily assigned to the Sayona site. In that role, he had access to the plaintiff's operational methods, cost evaluations, pricing structures, and tendering information specific to that mining site — knowledge that the plaintiff considered proprietary, given the unique nature of the lithium ore extraction involved.

On January 30, 2026, the defendant voluntarily resigned. Shortly thereafter, he was hired by Beluga Construction inc., a company operating in a similar field. Prima facie evidence before the court revealed that the defendant participated, on behalf of Beluga Construction, in activities related to the same client, Sayona — including the preparation of a bid that led to Beluga being awarded a contract for embankment work at the Sayona mine site. On June 5, 2026, the plaintiff sent the defendant a formal notice demanding he cease these activities, but it went unanswered. As of the date of the hearing, the defendant remained present and active at the Sayona mine site.

Contractual clauses at issue

The defendant's employment contract expressly included non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality clauses. The non-competition clause was limited to a duration of one year. The court noted that, at first glance, these clauses appeared reasonable in both their duration and territorial scope. In addition to these contractual obligations, the court considered the post-employment duty of loyalty and confidentiality under article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec, which continues to apply for a reasonable period after the end of employment. Article 2089 C.c.Q. was also referenced as the basis for the requirements governing non-competition clauses, which must not exceed what is necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court assessed the three criteria required for a provisional injunction: urgency, apparent right, and serious risk of irreparable harm. On urgency, the court found that the defendant's competing activities were ongoing and active — not hypothetical — and that the one-year duration of the non-competition clause made immediate intervention necessary to avoid rendering the plaintiff's rights illusory. On apparent right, the court was satisfied that prima facie evidence established that the defendant was working for a competitor and participating in activities involving the plaintiff's strategic client, covered by the contractual restrictions. While complete proof of actual use of confidential information was not yet before the court, it found such use plausible at this stage. On serious harm, the court recognized that potential disclosure of strategic pricing, methods, and commercial information with Sayona could cause irreversible prejudice — including loss of business opportunities and competitive advantage — that would be difficult to compensate through damages alone.

On the balance of inconveniences, the court acknowledged the defendant's competing interests but held that any inconvenience he might suffer was a consequence of his own deliberate actions. The court nonetheless ensured proportionality: it declined to issue a general prohibition on employment, finding that overly broad relief would exceed what was necessary at the provisional stage. Instead, it fashioned a targeted order focused on the defendant's activities related to Sayona specifically and the use of the plaintiff's confidential information.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court partially granted L. Fournier & Fils inc.'s application for a provisional injunction. For a period of ten days following service of the judgment, the defendant was ordered to immediately cease attending the Sayona mine site in La Corne and carrying out any activities there on behalf of Beluga Construction inc. that compete with the plaintiff; to cease using, disclosing, or communicating any confidential information belonging to the plaintiff, including pricing, costs, margins, work methods, and commercial contract details with Sayona; and to refrain from participating, directly or indirectly, in the preparation of any bid or business proposal targeting Sayona on behalf of Beluga Construction inc. The defendant was also ordered to preserve all documents and information belonging to the plaintiff without deletion or alteration. The plaintiff was exempted from providing security (caution). No monetary award or damages amount was specified in this judgment; costs were reserved. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on July 2, 2026.