Misbehaving Employees Beware: Ontario Court Cracks Down on Post-Termination Misconduct

Written By David Cassin and Madison Stemmler

The recent decision in Bougiotis v Manji, 2025 ONSC 2365 (Bougiotis), is a cautionary tale for departed employees thinking of misbehaving; and serves as an example of the relief available to employers where former employees engage in damaging conduct post-departure.

In Bougiotis, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted substantial injunctive relief against a former employee who misused confidential information and harassed and defamed both his former employer and manager.

Background

Jamil Manji was employed by CleanMark Group for a period of about  two and a half years, as a member of the company's senior leadership team. During his employment, Mr. Manji oversaw two of CleanMark’s key clients and had access to confidential and sensitive commercial information. His employment was governed by an employment agreement, which included a confidentiality clause.

Mr. Manji was terminated without cause, and received an enhanced severance package in exchange for signing a release of claims in favour of CleanMark. Soon after his termination (and after signing the release), Mr. Manji then began harassing the company and his ex-manager, Ms. Bougiotis. Mr. Manji’s behaviour escalated over the course of a year following his termination, during which he was found to have:

• repeatedly called, emailed and texted Ms. Bougiotis;
• threatened litigation against the company, and otherwise made generally threatening and cryptic communications about CleanMark and its staff; and
• sent anonymous and disparaging emails to CleanMark’s two key clients (which he managed in his former role) in which he acknowledged having confidential company information and offered to disclose it to the clients upon request (and also sent similar emails to other major clients of the company).

CleanMark first tried to stop Mr. Manji's behaviour by engaging with him directly, including sending him a “cease and desist” letter. Eventually, the company involved the police, in a further effort to curb Mr. Manji’s wrongdoing. Mr. Manji continued, undeterred, sending more inappropriate and harassing emails to CleanMark’s clients and Ms. Bougiotis (in some cases under pseudonyms to avoid detection).

Subsequently, CleanMark discovered that Mr. Manji had improperly and without authorization downloaded his entire work computer drive to his personal device, including a staff directory, confidential client information and financial details.

The Motion

CleanMark (and Ms. Bougiotis) then started an action and brought a motion seeking interlocutory relief, including: an injunction requiring Mr. Manji delete and return the company’s confidential information; an Anton Piller order (i.e., a civil search warrant) for the seizure of any devices containing company data; and an order restraining Mr. Manji from engaging in any further harassment or misuse of confidential information.

The Court granted sweeping interlocutory relief in favour of CleanMark (and Ms. Bougiotis) and also awarded C$34,500 in costs against Mr. Manji. In doing so, the Court found Mr. Manji had access to highly sensitive information, had breached his confidentiality obligations and had admitted to downloading company data post-employment. CleanMark was also able to establish irreparable harm because of Mr. Manji’s misconduct, including reputational damage, client risk and severe mental distress suffered by Ms. Bougiotis on account of the targeted harassment.

Key Takeaways

This decision is a recent example of relief available to employers who are faced with misbehaving former employees. It also serves as a cautionary tale for employees who may consider engaging in harassing, defamatory and/or inappropriate conduct following termination, that courts will restrain such behaviour and may award costs in doing so.

Injunctive relief remains a powerful tool in an employer’s arsenal to swiftly curb post-employment misconduct, protect confidential information and prevent reputational harm.

If you have any questions about this decision, or if we can help advise your business on similar or other employment-related issues, please contact one of the authors, or another member of the Bennett Jones Employment Services group, for more information.

Download PDF