Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jasvinder Binning downloaded over 400 confidential files from Mondee’s systems before resigning and joining competitor Voyzant.

• Evidence supports a substantial issue to be tried regarding misuse of confidential business data and possible breach of fiduciary duties by at least two former employees.

• Jasvinder admitted to breaching confidentiality and inconsistencies in his testimony suggest spoliation of evidence.

• The court found a strong prima facie case that Sandeep Mamgain and Jasvinder Binning were fiduciaries who may have breached duties.

• Injunctions were granted against use and retention of Mondee’s confidential information, but not against soliciting former customers due to insufficient proof of irreparable harm.

• Mondee’s financial difficulties and quantifiable sales losses undermined claims for broader injunctive relief against the defendants.

Facts of the case

In Mondee, Inc. v. Voyzant Inc., 2025 ONSC 2226, seven key employees from Mondee Canada Inc., a travel consolidator, resigned between May and June 2024 and joined direct competitor Voyzant Inc. Another 43 sales staff followed in September 2024. Before his departure, Jasvinder Binning, formerly Senior VP of Global Sales at Mondee, downloaded 434 files and an email backup from his company laptop to an external drive. Mondee claimed these files contained confidential and proprietary business information, and that their use by Voyzant and the former employees gave rise to unfair competition.

Mondee sought interlocutory relief from the Ontario Superior Court, including return and destruction of confidential information, a ban on soliciting specific clients, and broad injunctive relief against all defendants.

The court’s analysis and findings

Confidential information and breach of confidence

The court accepted that there was a substantial issue to be tried regarding misappropriation and misuse of confidential information. Jasvinder admitted to downloading the files, including client lists, commission models, agreements, and strategic sales data. His explanation about accessing this data lacked credibility and was contradicted by digital forensic evidence.

The court considered this sufficient to establish the first branch of the injunction test from RJR-MacDonald — namely, a serious issue to be tried. Mondee’s Code of Business Conduct, signed by the employees, reinforced that the materials taken were confidential.

Fiduciary duties and use of information

The court found a strong prima facie case that both Sandeep Mamgain (former President) and Jasvinder Binning were fiduciaries. Both had senior decision-making authority, access to sensitive information, and exclusive relationships with clients. Their subsequent actions raised concerns of improper conduct. The remaining employees were found to be potentially implicated, with the court concluding there was at least a substantial issue to be tried regarding their involvement.

Although Jasvinder argued that the information was outdated and not useful, the court noted this conflicted with his behavior, such as retaining the files for seven months and accessing some while working at Voyzant.

Evidence of harm and injunction scope

While Mondee claimed significant drops in sales and loss of key clients following the employee departures, it failed to prove irreparable harm. The losses, though substantial, were quantifiable and attributable in part to pre-existing financial distress and broader market issues. Furthermore, Mondee did not convincingly link all losses to the defendants’ actions, and its own financial records showed marginal profit margins.

This led the court to deny the request to restrain the defendants from soliciting or servicing specific customers. Mondee’s delay in seeking relief (six months after sending cease-and-desist letters) also undermined its position.

Final orders

Justice Papageorgiou issued a limited injunction:

• Granted: Return and destruction of confidential information taken by Jasvinder, including the physical hard drive.

• Granted: Injunction preventing any use or disclosure of Mondee’s confidential data.

• Dismissed: Injunction seeking to prevent sales to specified former Mondee customers.

The court emphasized that the injunction balances business fairness with the rights of individuals to earn a livelihood and recognizes the fluid, competitive nature of the travel industry.

Undertaking and balance of convenience

The court accepted Mondee’s undertaking for damages, noting it was sufficient despite the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. However, in balancing the inconvenience to both sides, it held that a full customer-related injunction would disproportionately harm Voyzant, possibly threatening its viability and the jobs of 500 employees.

Conclusion

The court acknowledged strong preliminary evidence that some former Mondee employees, especially Jasvinder and Sandeep, misused confidential information and breached fiduciary obligations. However, it declined to issue broad injunctive relief due to lack of clear linkage to irreparable harm, quantifiability of losses, and Mondee’s own financial and operational troubles. The decision illustrates the high threshold for extraordinary pre-trial remedies and the importance of credible, timely, and substantiated evidence.

No damages or compensatory amounts were awarded.

No costs were granted in this decision — the judge reserved the issue of costs for later submissions.