Non-Compete Agreement (Canada)
IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE
This Non-Compete Agreement is governed by Canadian law. The enforceability of non-compete clauses varies significantly by province. In Ontario, the Working for Workers Act, 2021 (Employment Standards Act, 2000, s. 67.2) PROHIBITS non-compete agreements for the vast majority of employees. Exceptions exist only for (a) C-suite executives (e.g., Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer) and (b) agreements entered into in connection with the sale of a business. In all provinces, non-compete restrictions must be reasonable in scope, duration, and geographic area to be enforceable. Both Parties are strongly encouraged to seek independent legal advice before signing this Agreement.
This Non-Compete Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into and made effective as of [Effective Date] (the "Effective Date"), by and between:
[Employer Name], with its principal place of business located at [Employer Address], [Employer City], [Employer Province] [Employer Postal Code], Canada (hereinafter referred to as the "Employer"); and
[Employee Name], residing at [Employee Address], [Employee City], [Employee Province] [Employee Postal Code], Canada, currently holding the position of [Employee Title] (hereinafter referred to as the "Employee").
The Employer and the Employee are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Employer is engaged in a business that involves proprietary information, trade secrets, confidential business strategies, client relationships, and specialized knowledge that constitute legitimate proprietary interests worthy of protection;
WHEREAS, the Employee has been or will be employed by the Employer in a capacity that provides the Employee with access to the Employer’s confidential information, trade secrets, client lists, business methods, and other proprietary materials;
WHEREAS, the Employer has a legitimate proprietary interest in protecting its confidential information, goodwill, client relationships, and competitive position, which constitutes a legitimate interest recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as necessary for the protection of restrictive covenants (Elsley v. J.G. Collins Insurance Agencies Ltd., [1978] 2 SCR 916);
WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that this Agreement arises in the context of [Agreement Context] and that the enforceability of non-compete restrictions varies by province and context under Canadian law;
WHEREAS, the Employee acknowledges that the restrictions contained in this Agreement are reasonable and necessary to protect the Employer’s legitimate proprietary interests and that the Employee has had the opportunity to seek independent legal advice;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of [Consideration], and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. CONSIDERATION
In exchange for the Employee’s agreement to the restrictive covenants contained herein, the Employer shall provide the Employee with the following consideration: [Consideration]. The Employee acknowledges that this consideration is adequate, sufficient, and constitutes fresh consideration to support the obligations and restrictions set forth in this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that this consideration is independent of any consideration provided under the Employee’s employment agreement or offer of employment.
2. NON-COMPETE COVENANT
2.1 Restriction Period. The Employee agrees that for a period of [Non-Compete Duration] following the termination of the Employee’s employment with the Employer, whether such termination is voluntary or involuntary, with or without cause (the "Restriction Period"), the Employee shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any of the restricted activities described in this Section.
2.2 Geographic Scope. The restrictions set forth in this Agreement shall apply [Geographic Scope] (the "Restricted Territory"). The Parties acknowledge that this geographic limitation is reasonable given the nature and extent of the Employer’s business operations and the Employee’s access to confidential information and client relationships.
2.3 Restricted Activities. During the Restriction Period and within the Restricted Territory, the Employee shall not, directly or indirectly, on the Employee’s own behalf or on behalf of any other person, firm, corporation, or entity:
(a) Engage in, own, manage, operate, control, be employed by, consult for, participate in, or be connected in any manner with any business or enterprise that involves [Restricted Activities];
(b) Assist any person or entity in engaging in any of the activities described in subsection (a) above within the Restricted Territory;
(c) Have any ownership interest in any business or enterprise that competes with the Employer within the Restricted Territory, except for the passive ownership of no more than five percent (5%) of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded company listed on a Canadian or recognized international stock exchange.
3. PROVINCIAL STATUTORY COMPLIANCE
3.1 Ontario. The Parties acknowledge that under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (Ontario), as amended by the Working for Workers Act, 2021 (s. 67.2), non-compete agreements are prohibited for employees in Ontario, except where the Employee is an executive as defined in subsection 67.2(3) of the Act, or where this Agreement is entered into in connection with the sale of a business. If this Agreement is entered into in the context of a standard employment relationship in Ontario and the Employee does not qualify as an executive, the non-compete provisions of Section 2 shall be void and unenforceable in Ontario, and only the non-solicitation provisions (if included) and confidentiality provisions (if included) shall remain in effect.
3.2 Other Provinces. In provinces and territories other than Ontario, non-compete covenants are enforceable where they are reasonable in scope, duration, and geographic area and protect a legitimate proprietary interest of the Employer. The Parties acknowledge the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Elsley v. J.G. Collins Insurance Agencies Ltd. and Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc., [2009] 1 SCR 157, including the requirement that restrictive covenants be clear, unambiguous, and no broader than necessary to protect the Employer’s legitimate interests.
3.3 Agreement Context. The Parties confirm that this Agreement arises in the context of [Agreement Context], and the enforceability of the non-compete provisions shall be assessed in light of the applicable provincial legislation and common law principles governing such context.
4. REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTIONS
The Employee acknowledges and agrees that the restrictions contained in this Agreement, including the duration of [Non-Compete Duration], the geographic scope, and the scope of restricted activities, are reasonable and necessary to protect the legitimate proprietary interests of the Employer. The Employee further acknowledges that these restrictions will not impose undue hardship on the Employee or prevent the Employee from earning a livelihood, given the Employee’s skills, experience, and qualifications.
The Parties acknowledge that the enforceability of restrictive covenants in Canada is governed by the principles established in Elsley v. J.G. Collins Insurance Agencies Ltd., [1978] 2 SCR 916 and Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc., [2009] 1 SCR 157. The restrictions herein have been drafted to be no broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the Employer’s legitimate proprietary interests.
5. REMEDIES FOR BREACH
The Parties acknowledge and agree that a breach of this Agreement would cause irreparable harm to the Employer for which monetary damages alone would be an inadequate remedy. In the event of a breach or threatened breach of this Agreement, the Employer shall be entitled to seek [Remedies], in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity.
The Employer may apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for interim and interlocutory injunctive relief without the necessity of proving actual damages. In the event the Employee breaches any provision of this Agreement, the Restriction Period shall be extended by the duration of such breach. In any legal proceeding to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable legal costs and disbursements from the other Party.
6. SEVERABILITY AND READING DOWN
If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. The Parties agree that the court may read down or modify any unenforceable provision to the minimum extent necessary to render it enforceable, in accordance with the approach endorsed by Canadian courts. The Parties acknowledge, consistent with Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc., that notional severance is not available to remedy ambiguous or unreasonable restrictions and that the blue-pencil doctrine permits only the severance of clearly distinct and independent provisions.
7. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of [Governing Law] and the applicable federal laws of Canada. Any legal action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be brought exclusively in the courts of competent jurisdiction located in the Province of [Governing Law], and the Parties hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts.
8. NOTICES
All notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when delivered personally, sent by registered mail, or sent by email to the following addresses:
To the Employer: [Employer Name], [Employer Address], [Employer City], [Employer Province] [Employer Postal Code], Canada, Email: [Employer Email]
To the Employee: [Employee Name], [Employee Address], [Employee City], [Employee Province] [Employee Postal Code], Canada, Email: [Employee Email]
Either Party may change its address for receipt of notices by providing written notice to the other Party in accordance with this section.
9. ASSIGNMENT
The Employer may assign this Agreement to any successor, affiliate, or purchaser of all or substantially all of the Employer’s business or assets without the consent of the Employee. The Employee may not assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Employer.
10. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, representations, warranties, commitments, offers, contracts, and understandings, whether oral or written. This Agreement may not be amended, modified, or supplemented except by a written instrument duly executed by both Parties.
11. WAIVER
The failure of either Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce that provision or any other provision in the future. Any waiver must be in writing and signed by the Party granting the waiver.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Non-Compete Agreement as of the Effective Date first written above.
EMPLOYER:
[Employer Name]
Name: [Employer Signer]
Title: [Employer Signer Title]
Date: [Effective Date]
EMPLOYEE:
Name: [Employee Name]
Title: [Employee Title]
Date: [Employee Sign Date]
Party 1
________________
Signature
Date: ________________
Party 2
________________
Signature
Date: ________________
What Is a Non-Compete Agreement (Canada)?
A Non-Compete Agreement in Canada restrains a party from competing with the business within a defined territory and time, subject to reasonableness at common law, governed primarily by common-law restraint-of-trade principles requiring reasonableness.
Non-compete agreements face significant enforceability challenges in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada in Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (2009 SCC 6) established that non-competes must be reasonable in three dimensions: duration, geographic scope, and the activities restricted. If any element is ambiguous or unreasonable, the entire covenant is unenforceable — Canadian courts will not use notional severance to rewrite overly broad terms. The court can only apply the blue-pencil doctrine to remove clearly severable, independent provisions.
Ontario fundamentally changed employment law in 2021 by amending the Employment Standards Act (s. 67.2) to ban non-compete agreements for most employees. The only exceptions are C-suite executives (President, CEO, CFO, COO, CTO, or equivalent) and situations involving the sale of a business where the seller becomes an employee of the buyer. This ban does not affect non-solicitation agreements, which remain enforceable in Ontario.
Other provinces — British Columbia, Alberta, and the remaining common law provinces — continue to apply the common law reasonableness test. In Quebec, the Civil Code (art. 2089 C.C.Q.) requires that non-competes be in writing, specify the term, territory, and activities restricted, and be reasonable in light of all circumstances. Courts across Canada consistently hold that non-competes are restraints of trade that are prima facie void, and the burden of proving reasonableness falls on the party seeking to enforce the restriction. Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) administers the Canada Labour Code 1985, which governs federally regulated employees. Section 6 of the Employment Standards Act 2000 establishes minimum employment standards in Ontario, and Section 67.2 of the Employment Standards Act 2000 (added by the Working for Workers Act 2021) specifically bans non-competes for most Ontario employees. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act 2000, enforced by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, governs handling of employee personal information that a non-compete may involve. The Federal Court of Canada adjudicates disputes involving federally regulated employers, while the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, British Columbia Supreme Court, and Alberta Court of King's Bench handle the majority of non-compete enforcement actions.
Employers seeking to protect proprietary interests in provinces beyond Ontario should pair a non-compete agreement with a non-disclosure agreement and a non-solicitation agreement. Section 5 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act 2000 requires that any employee personal data referenced in the agreement be handled in accordance with the ten fair information principles in Schedule 1. The Copyright Act 1985 and Patent Act 1985 provide parallel intellectual property protections for confidential works and inventions developed during employment. Forms-legal.com provides this Canadian Non-Compete Agreement template as a starting point for Canada-compliant documentation.
When Do You Need a Non-Compete Agreement (Canada)?
When selling a business and the buyer requires the seller to refrain from competing within the same market for a defined period after closing. Non-competes in the sale-of-business context are more readily enforced by Canadian courts because the seller received full consideration (the purchase price) for the restriction.
When a C-suite executive (CEO, CFO, COO, or equivalent) is joining a company with access to highly sensitive strategic information, and the employer needs protection against the executive using that knowledge to compete directly. In Ontario, only executives at this level can be subject to non-competes under ESA s. 67.2.
When an independent contractor — not subject to the Ontario ESA employee ban — completes an engagement where they gained access to proprietary processes, trade secrets, or customer relationships, and the hiring company needs a reasonable post-engagement restriction.
When partners dissolve a partnership and one partner needs assurance that the other will not immediately open a competing business in the same geographic area, using the departing partner's share of goodwill and client relationships.
When a franchisee's franchise agreement terminates and the franchisor needs to prevent the former franchisee from operating a competing business in the same territory.
Before implementing a non-compete in Ontario, employers must verify that the individual meets the C-suite exception under Section 67.2 of the Employment Standards Act 2000. Attempting to enforce a non-compete against a non-exempt employee is void under the Employment Standards Act 2000, and the employer may face complaints to the Ontario Ministry of Labour under Section 96 of the Employment Standards Act 2000. The Competition Bureau enforces Section 45 of the Competition Act 1985, which prohibits agreements between competitors that restrict competition — employers must ensure non-compete restrictions in sale-of-business contexts do not constitute anti-competitive market division agreements. The Canada Labour Code 1985 governs non-compete obligations for federally regulated employees in banking, telecommunications, and interprovincial transportation. Provincial Employment Standards Acts — including the British Columbia Employment Standards Act 1996 and the Alberta Employment Standards Code 2000 — govern notice and severance obligations that interact with non-compete enforcement when employment ends. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and British Columbia Supreme Court regularly grant interim injunctions to enforce non-compete obligations upon breach.
What to Include in Your Non-Compete Agreement (Canada)
Reasonable Duration — The time period must be proportionate to the legitimate business interest being protected. Canadian courts typically enforce periods of six months to two years for employment-related non-competes. Restrictions exceeding two years face significant judicial scrutiny and are more commonly upheld only in sale-of-business contexts.
Defined Geographic Scope — The territorial restriction must be specific and reasonable. Shafron v. KRG invalidated a non-compete because the geographic term was ambiguous. Acceptable definitions include a named city, a specific radius from the employer's location, or identified provinces. National or global restrictions require strong justification.
Activity Restriction — A precise description of the competitive activities prohibited. Broad prohibitions such as "any business activity" are likely unenforceable. The restriction should be limited to the specific industry, product line, or service category that the individual worked with.
Ontario ESA s. 67.2 Compliance — If the agreement is with an employee in Ontario, include an acknowledgment that the restriction applies only if the employee qualifies as a C-suite executive under the ESA. For non-exempt employees, consider using a non-solicitation agreement instead.
Consideration — For non-competes signed after the start of employment (as opposed to at hiring), fresh consideration must be provided. Continued employment alone may not constitute sufficient consideration in some Canadian jurisdictions. Additional compensation, a signing bonus, or access to restricted information should be documented.
Legitimate Business Interest — The agreement should identify the specific interest being protected — trade secrets, proprietary customer relationships, or specialized training provided at the employer's expense. Canadian courts require proof that a non-compete is necessary to protect a legitimate interest that a non-solicitation agreement could not adequately address.
Consequences of Breach — Remedies including liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and the right to recover legal costs. Injunctive relief clauses are critical because competitive harm is often irreparable.
Severability — A blue-pencil severability clause allowing a court to strike clearly independent, unenforceable provisions while preserving the rest of the agreement. Note that Canadian courts will not rewrite ambiguous terms — they can only remove severable portions.
Governing Law — The province whose laws govern enforceability. This is critical given the significant variation between Ontario's statutory ban under Section 67.2 of the Employment Standards Act 2000, Article 2089 of the Civil Code of Quebec 1991 requiring proportionality, and the common law reasonableness test applied in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Atlantic provinces. Section 5 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act 2000 governs handling of employee personal data included in non-compete documentation. The Competition Bureau enforces Section 45 and Section 90.1 of the Competition Act 1985 to prevent non-competes between competitors that lessen competition. The Canada Labour Code 1985 governs non-compete obligations for federally regulated employees in banking, telecommunications, and interprovincial transportation sectors. Dispute Resolution — The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, British Columbia Supreme Court, and Alberta Court of King's Bench adjudicate non-compete enforcement actions. Many employers include arbitration clauses under the Arbitration Act 1991 (Ontario) or Arbitration Act 2020 (British Columbia) as a faster alternative to litigation. Forms-legal.com provides this Canadian Non-Compete Agreement template as a starting point for Canada-compliant documentation.
Cite this page
Reference this free template in an article, syllabus, or research note:
Forms Legal. (2026). Non-Compete Agreement (Canada) (Canada) [Legal document template]. Forms Legal. https://forms-legal.com/canada/business/contracts/non-compete-agreement-canada
"Non-Compete Agreement (Canada) (Canada)." Forms Legal, 2026, https://forms-legal.com/canada/business/contracts/non-compete-agreement-canada.
@misc{formslegal-non-compete-agreement-canada,
author = {{Forms Legal}},
title = {Non-Compete Agreement (Canada) (Canada)},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://forms-legal.com/canada/business/contracts/non-compete-agreement-canada}},
note = {Free legal document template. Based on Common law doctrine of restraint of trade (Ontario: Working for Workers Act 2021 / ESA s. 67.2)}
}Also available for these jurisdictions:
Frequently Asked Questions
Non-compete agreements are legal in Canada but face significant enforceability challenges that vary substantially by province. Ontario fundamentally changed the legal landscape in 2021 by amending the Employment Standards Act 2000 (S.O. 2000, c. 41, ESA) through the Working for Workers Act, 2021, which added section 67.2 to ban non-compete agreements for most employees. The Ontario ban applies to all employment agreements entered into on or after 25 October 2021. The only exceptions in Ontario are: C-suite executives (President, CEO, CFO, COO, CTO, or equivalent role with decision-making authority over the entire enterprise) and situations involving the sale of a business where the seller becomes an employee of the buyer. In all other provinces — British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Atlantic provinces — non-compete agreements remain permissible under the common law reasonableness test established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (2009 SCC 6). Non-competes must be reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and the scope of restricted activities, and must protect a legitimate proprietary interest. In Quebec, article 2089 of the Civil Code of Quebec (CQLR c. CCQ-1991) governs non-competes for employees, requiring the restriction to be in writing, limited as to time, place, and type of employment, and proportionate to the legitimate interests of the employer. The Competition Bureau enforces the Competition Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34), which prohibits non-competes used to restrain trade in ways that unduly lessen competition.
For a non-compete agreement to be enforceable in Canada, it must satisfy the common law reasonableness test from Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (2009 SCC 6). The restriction must be reasonable in three dimensions: (1) Duration — courts typically enforce six months to two years for employment contexts; sale-of-business non-competes may extend to five years. (2) Geographic scope — the Shafron decision invalidated a non-compete because 'Metropolitan Vancouver' was ambiguous. Definitions must be specific: a named city, a radius, or identified provinces. (3) Activity restriction — limited to the specific industry or service category the individual actually worked with. Broad prohibitions are unenforceable. The non-compete must protect a legitimate proprietary interest — trade secrets, specialized training, or proprietary customer relationships — that a non-solicitation agreement could not adequately protect. In Ontario, Section 67.2 of the Employment Standards Act 2000 limits non-competes to C-suite executives. In Quebec, Article 2089 of the Civil Code of Quebec 1991 requires proportionality. The Competition Bureau enforces Section 45 of the Competition Act 1985 against non-competes that unduly restrict competition.
The blue-pencil doctrine allows Canadian courts to strike out clearly unenforceable, severable portions of a non-compete while preserving the remainder. However, Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (2009 SCC 6) firmly rejected notional severance — rewriting or reformulating ambiguous terms to make them reasonable. If a key parameter (duration, geographic scope, or restricted activities) is ambiguous, the entire covenant is void. In Lyons v. Multari (2000 CanLII 16874, Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal applied blue-pencil severance to strike an overly broad geographic restriction while preserving a narrower, clearly severable scope. In Shafron, the entire restriction was void because the geographic term was ambiguous. In Ontario, Section 67.2 of the Employment Standards Act 2000 renders non-competes void — not merely unenforceable — for non-C-suite employees. In Quebec, Article 2089 of the Civil Code of Quebec 1991 requires courts to assess proportionality. The Competition Bureau can challenge non-competes that lessen competition under Section 90.1 of the Competition Act 1985. The forms-legal.com Canadian Non-Compete Agreement template includes a blue-pencil severability clause and precise parameter definitions to maximize enforceability.
A Non-Compete Agreement (Canada) does not legally require a lawyer in Canada, and individuals and businesses may draft and execute the document independently. The Canada Business Corporations Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44) does not mandate legal representation for the creation or signing of this type of document. However, seeking independent legal advice from a qualified Canada lawyer is recommended for transactions involving substantial financial value, complex regulatory requirements, or cross-border elements where multiple legal jurisdictions may apply. A lawyer can verify that the document complies with all applicable statutory requirements, identify potential risks specific to the transaction, and confirm that the terms adequately protect the interests of all parties involved. The Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction over disputes arising from this type of document, and Corporations Canada may impose additional compliance obligations depending on the nature of the underlying transaction. Professional legal review is particularly advisable where the document will be submitted to government agencies or used as evidence in legal proceedings.
A Non-Compete Agreement (Canada) does not legally require a lawyer in Canada, though legal advice is recommended for complex transactions. Under Canadian law, individuals may draft and execute this type of document independently. The Competition Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34) provides consumer protections. However, Corporations Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), or provincial regulatory bodies may have specific requirements. For property transactions, provincial land title offices require qualified lawyers or notaries. PIPEDA and provincial privacy legislation impose obligations on parties handling personal data. Where disputes arise, provincial superior courts or the Federal Court of Canada have jurisdiction. Forms-legal.com provides this template as a starting point — always review with a qualified Canadian lawyer for significant transactions.
This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change over time. Consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.Full disclaimer
Found an error? Let us knowRelated Documents
You may also find these documents useful:
Non-Solicitation Agreement (Canada)
Protect your business relationships with a Canadian Non-Solicitation Agreement. Prevents former employees or partners from soliciting your clients or staff. Enforceable under Canadian common law.
Employee NDA (Canada)
Protect your business secrets with a Canadian Employee NDA. Covers confidential information, intellectual property assignment under the Copyright Act, return of materials, and post-employment obligations.
Employment Contract (Canada)
Hire employees in Canada with a legally compliant Employment Contract. Covers compensation, benefits, probation period, termination provisions, and provincial ESA requirements including CPP/EI deductions.
Non-Compete Agreement
Worried a departing employee will jump to a competitor or start a rival business using what they learned at your company? A Non-Compete Agreement restricts where and when a former employee or contractor can work in your industry after they leave. Courts scrutinize these closely, so the scope, duration, and geography need to be reasonable. Our template covers the restricted activities, time period, geographic area, compensation for the restriction, and remedies for violation. Fill it out, preview live, and download as PDF or Word — free, no sign-up.
Confidentiality Agreement (Canada)
Protect trade secrets and proprietary business information with a Canadian confidentiality agreement. This template supports both unilateral and mutual agreements, references Canadian common law trade secret protections, PIPEDA privacy obligations, and includes provisions for compelled disclosure, return of materials, equitable remedies, and survival periods.