Ontario court seizes ex-worker's laptop after confidential data theft exposed
Ontario's Superior Court of Justice recently dealt with a significant case involving workplace confidentiality breaches, harassment allegations, and the legal remedies available to employers when former workers misuse company information after their employment ends.
The case centred on a worker who claimed he acted as a "whistleblower" when sending information to clients and argued that court orders against him would breach his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
He further contested that the employer had delayed bringing legal action, suggesting this delay indicated the alleged harm wasn't as serious as claimed.
The worker was employed by the cleaning services company from October 2021 to April 2024, where he managed two major clients—Apple Inc. and Best Buy Co. Inc.—that accounted for 50% to 60% of the company's annual revenue and 100% of its revenue in the United States.
During his employment, he had access to confidential information relating to these and other clients.
When the worker's employment was terminated without cause in April 2024, the employer complied with obligations under Ontario's Employment Standards Act, provided a reference letter, and offered additional pay in exchange for a full and final release.
The employer paid the worker 8.67 weeks' pay, which included 6.67 weeks beyond the legal requirement. The worker accepted these terms and signed the release of all employment claims two days after his termination.
The worker's employment agreement explicitly prohibited him from disclosing confidential information both during and after his employment.
He was not permitted to make copies or remove confidential information from the company's premises, a restriction that would later become central to the dispute.
"[The worker's] employment agreement imposes a duty of confidentiality and prohibits disclosure of confidential information during or after his employment. His employment agreement strictly prohibits [the worker] from making copies of or removing [the employer's] confidential information from its premises," noted the court in its decision.
Following his departure, the worker began contacting his former manager (the vice president of client experience at the company) repeatedly through calls, emails, and text messages.
When his communications were blocked, the court found that the worker used at least eight different telephone numbers to continue his attempts to reach the manager.
The situation escalated when the employer's executive vice president emailed the worker advising that his communications were unwelcome and requesting that he stop. When this proved ineffective, the employer's lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter in May 2024.
As his attempts to contact his former manager continued to be unsuccessful, the worker's behaviour reportedly changed from expressions of admiration to hostility.
Anonymous disparaging emails were sent to the employer's clients, containing information that, according to the court, only the worker could have known.
The Toronto Police Service became involved and warned the worker that he could face criminal charges if his conduct didn't stop.
"[The worker] has conducted a campaign against [the employer and manager] for almost a year, in the face of intervention by the Toronto Police Service and this action against him," stated the court in its assessment of the situation.
The employer discovered in August 2024 that the worker had downloaded his entire computer drive, including the staff directory and confidential client information with financial details.
During court proceedings in March 2025, the worker admitted to downloading the company's material onto a hard drive but claimed his laptop was not functional.
The worker argued he was acting as a "whistleblower" and that the court orders would breach his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court rejected these arguments, finding his timing more consistent with retaliation than genuine whistleblowing.
"I reject [the worker's] allegation that he was acting as a 'whistleblower.' He did not file any evidence on the motion and, in any event, he only contacted Apple and Best Buy after his first attempts to get [the manager's] attention failed. This timing is more consistent with retaliation than it is with whistleblowing," the court explained.
The court found that the worker's conduct had serious consequences for the employer. The company's Google Business Page was shut down after the worker left "several hundred negative Google reviews" in a few months. The business also had to participate in an investigation with one of its major clients.
"In this case [the employer] risks significant further damage to its reputation and the potential loss of its two major clients. There is a real risk that [the employer's] business could fail if it loses either or both of these clients," the court noted.
The court ultimately granted an interlocutory injunction and Anton Piller order (a court order that allows a search of premises without prior warning). This required the worker to return and delete all confidential information, refrain from harassing the manager, and surrender his laptop to an independent supervising solicitor for examination.
"Confidential information can include customer lists and is not limited to documents but can also include information that the employee has come to know about the employer's customers," the court added, clarifying the broad scope of what constitutes protected information in the employment context.
"[The worker] has no legal entitlement to [the employer's] confidential information and proprietary trade secrets and is using it as part of his campaign to harass and defame [the employer and manager]," the court concluded, ordering costs of $34,570.15 against the worker due to his "ongoing campaign of harassment."
