The case Great North Equipment Inc. v. Penney involves business litigation concerning former employees (Penney, MacDonald, and Monilaws) of Great North Equipment Inc. (GNE) and related companies. GNE sought an extension of an interim injunction and the obligation of non-party witnesses to provide undertakings.

Decision 1 (2024 ABKB 391):

GNE examined non-party witnesses under Rule 6.8 to support extending an injunction preventing the defendants from soliciting clients and employees. GNE argued that non-party witnesses should provide undertakings, but the court ruled against this, stating that non-parties are not obligated to answer undertakings under Rule 6.8, which is less intrusive than full discovery (Rule 5.30).

Decision 2 (2024 ABKB 533):

GNE also sought to extend an injunction against former employees, accusing them of breaching fiduciary duties and violating restrictive covenants by soliciting clients and using confidential information after leaving to work for Paloma, a competitor. The court found no enforceable restrictive covenants, as the former employees were not properly bound by the shareholders' agreement and received no sufficient consideration. Additionally, the court found no material evidence of ongoing fiduciary breaches or misuse of confidential information. As a result, the injunction was set aside, and the extension request was denied.

Outcome:

The court dismissed GNE's requests in both decisions. Non-party witnesses were not required to provide undertakings, and the injunction against the former employees was not extended due to a lack of enforceable covenants and evidence of misconduct.

No monetary award was specified.