Zipper Transportation v. Korstrom [1998] 126 Man. R. (2d) 126 (C.A.) Facts: Korstrom argued that this was an employer-employee contract, with the employee being in an unequal bargaining position to the employer.
Issues: She submitted that the court erred in finding (1) that the restrictive covenant was reasonable; and (2) in not considering either irreparable harm or balance of convenience
Holding: The Court of Appeal applied a different test considering irreparable harm and balance of convenience and denied the injunction; holding that if the injunction is upheld, no benefit would accrue to Zipper by regaining the Piston Ring runs and that no irreparable harm would result to Zipper if the relief is denied since it was possible to quantify damages. So the court let Korstrom keep the “stolen client” (Piston ring) until the result of the trial was known.
Reasons: Three-stage test for Interim Injunctions(p.953, quoting Metropolitan Stores):
Is there is enough merit to the case to ensure there is a serious injury?
Will the party claiming the injunction suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted?
How does the balance of convenience (between the plaintiff/applicant and defendant) lie? Which of the parties would suffer greater harm from the granting of the injunction?
Applying the facts of the case to the test, the court of appeal held:
