Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centers on alleged misuse of confidential business information by a former employee.

• NSD Disposal sought three injunctions: to protect confidential data, prevent client solicitation, and allow forensic examination.

• The court emphasized the higher threshold for injunctions that restrict employment or livelihood.

• Strong prima facie evidence was lacking for post-employment solicitation and forensic review claims.

• Only the injunction protecting confidential information was granted due to admitted and inferred breaches.

• No sufficient proof that the defendant used client data after the expiration of the restrictive covenant.

Facts and background of the case

NSD Disposal Limited, a commercial waste bin supplier, employed Martin Ruppel as a territory manager from 2013 until 2023. During his employment, Ruppel had access to confidential client information and signed both a Restrictive Covenant Agreement and a Confidentiality Agreement. These contracts prohibited him from soliciting NSD clients or disclosing sensitive business information for one year following the termination of his employment.

Tensions emerged in late 2022 due to a commission-related dispute. After Ruppel went on sick leave and never returned, NSD investigated his digital activity and discovered what it interpreted as potential breaches of confidentiality obligations. The company’s IT consultant found evidence of deleted files, altered Google accounts, and a data export (“Google Takeout”) suggesting confidential data may have been accessed or removed.

Ruppel left NSD in April 2023 and later joined a competitor, Super Save Disposal Inc., in June 2024—after his one-year non-solicitation period had ended. NSD alleged that its client base suffered unusual cancellations around the time of Ruppel's departure and after his employment at Super Save, indicating possible misuse of confidential client information.

Legal relief sought and judicial analysis

NSD sought three main forms of interlocutory injunctive relief:

1. Prevent Ruppel from using or disclosing NSD’s confidential information.

2. Prohibit him from soliciting NSD clients.

3. Compel him to submit electronic devices for forensic examination.

In determining the relief, the court applied the standard interlocutory injunction test from RJR-MacDonald and the modified test from Wale, with heightened scrutiny for injunctions affecting livelihood or professional capacity.

The court acknowledged some level of breach by Ruppel concerning client files he admitted to saving, but emphasized that most of the conduct NSD complained of occurred outside the one-year restriction period. The evidence regarding ongoing client solicitation or data misuse was largely circumstantial, speculative, or hearsay, and not sufficient to meet the higher threshold required for relief that would impact Ruppel’s employment.

Outcome of the case

The court granted NSD’s first request—an injunction prohibiting the use, alteration, or disclosure of its confidential information. This was based on admissions and reasonable inferences of breach, including the suspicious removal of data and use of personal accounts for business activity during employment.

However, the court denied the second and third injunctions. It ruled that NSD failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case of post-restriction solicitation or data misuse serious enough to justify extended relief. There was insufficient direct or inferential evidence to establish that Ruppel continued to exploit NSD’s confidential information after the expiration of his restrictive covenant. Additionally, the request for forensic review was deemed overly intrusive and unsupported by clear signs of document destruction or discovery evasion.

The result was a partial win for NSD. The court protected its proprietary information but declined to further limit Ruppel’s current professional activities, particularly where there was no legal basis to extend restrictive covenants beyond their agreed terms.