An Ontario court has ruled that it can hear a lawsuit against a Manitoba-based investment advisor brought by his former firm because there is a substantial connection to Ontario, but the court declined to consolidate the suit with three similar cases against advisors in Ontario.
Earlier this week, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined a motion from a Winnipeg-based investment advisor, Michael Barker, and his new firm, Raymond James Ltd., who were seeking to dismiss a case against them brought by Barker’s former firm, Edward Jones; or, to have the court declare that Manitoba is the proper venue for the suit.
According to the court’s decision, Edward Jones alleged that Barker breached confidentiality and non-solicitation obligations in his employment contract as well as breaching common law duties when he switched firms. The allegations have not been proven.
Barker and Raymond James argued that the case should be heard in Manitoba, rather than Ontario. However, the court found that Ontario is an appropriate venue. “In my view, the plaintiff has established presumptive connecting factors that link the subject matter of the litigation to Ontario,” it says. Specifically, it notes that the employment contract between the advisor and the firm was made in Ontario, and that interpreting the contract’s terms will form an important part of the litigation,” stated Judge Katherine Swinton, in the decision.
The decision also ruled on a motion from Edward Jones seeking an order that this action be tried together with three other similar suits against advisors that have left the firm for Raymond James, or that they be heard immediately after one another.
According to the decision, Edward Jones argued that the four actions involve an employment contract that is largely the same; that combining them will mean multiple proceedings can be avoided, and that this would mitigate the risk of inconsistent decisions.
However, the court found against Edward Jones on that question, saying, “Mr. Barker’s employment contract is differently worded from that of the defendants in the other three actions, since it bars solicitation but not dealing with former clients.” Also, the court said the alleged breaches will, to some extent, turn on the actions of each individual defendant.
“Therefore, I am not satisfied that there will be a saving of time if Mr. Barker’s action is tried with the others, as there is not likely to be a significant overlap in witnesses between the actions. Given the individualized nature of the actions, I do not see a risk of inconsistent decisions,” Judge Swinton stated.