Page 3 of 5
D. Toward the Development of a Canadian Scheme - Scenarios
In considering the scope and content of a Canadian scheme for the interprovincial enforcement of non-money judgments it may be helpful to bear in mind some examples of circumstances where this scheme might be used.
1. A woman obtains a non-molestation order from a court in Alberta, enjoining her estranged husband from harassing her or from coming within 100 metres of her. Both parties move to Vancouver and the woman is afraid her husband will continue to harass her. What must she do to be protected in B.C.? Must she go to court to have a similar order instated in B.C.? How far can she rely on the Alberta order? If it is resisted, must the court hear the defences her husband raised in the Alberta action?
2. A company in Alberta fears that a former employee may divulge to competitors trade secrets that employee may have learned while working for the company. It goes to the superior Court in Alberta and obtains a permanent qua timet injunction against the former employee. The order enjoins the former employee from divulging any information learned while employed by the company. The former employee moves to Vancouver to work for a competitor. What can be done to prevent the employee from breaching the terms of the Alberta order while in British Columbia? What if the company had obtained an interim injunction only and the claim for a final inunction had not yet been heard?
3. A Saskatchewan court orders the specific performance by A of a contract to convey to B a parcel of land located in Saskatchewan. A moves to Alberta without complying with the order. Should B have any remedy in Alberta? What should it be? What if the order directed the specific performance by A of a contract to sell an oil painting to B and A moved to Alberta taking the oil painting with him? Alternatively, the order might have declared B's ownership of the oil painting and ordered that it be delivered up by A to B.