The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an emergency injunction against two former construction employees after their employer presented evidence that confidential tender and estimating materials had allegedly been collected before they joined a competitor. The Court ordered temporary protection of the information but declined to restrain the competing company.
The order was made without hearing the defendants. It addressed an urgent risk, not a final finding that anyone had misused confidential documents.
The Contractor’s Evidence of File Collection
In Davidson Bros. Mechanical Contractors Ltd. v. VIS Mechanical Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1836, Davidson Bros., a contractor specializing in plumbing, HVAC and sprinkler systems, sought relief against a former head estimator and estimating coordinator who had moved to VIS Mechanical Ltd.
Davidson alleged that the employees collected pricing formulas, customer and supplier information, tender precedents, project documents and access credentials for tendering platforms. Some material allegedly appeared in a folder named after VIS Mechanical, and the electronic records indicated that files had been deleted.
For a contractor competing for bids, this information could reveal pricing methods, supplier arrangements and commercially sensitive project estimates. Davidson applied without notice primarily because of the apparent history of deleting key evidence.
Why the Court Granted Limited Relief
The Court found an arguable, and on the current record even apparently strong, case that the former head estimator breached his fiduciary duty, and a similar case of knowing assistance against the estimating coordinator. It also accepted that misuse of confidential tender records could cause harm difficult to calculate in damages, including permanent loss of market share, goodwill, and supplier and customer relationships.
The digital records supported the need for immediate protection but did not conclusively establish misuse. On the preliminary evidence, the Court restrained the former employees from using Davidson’s confidential information or soliciting its employees and required delivery of the relevant material.
The Court refused to extend the injunction to VIS Mechanical. There was not yet evidence of the competitor’s knowing involvement in the alleged misappropriation or misuse, or of its ability to readily identify information the former employees may have brought with them.
Because the application proceeded without notice, the former employees and VIS Mechanical had not yet answered the allegations. Broader relief was left to a later hearing at which they could respond.
What Construction Businesses Should Take From the Decision
Tender files and estimating methods can be valuable confidential business information, but a departing employee’s general skills and knowledge are not automatically the former employer’s property.
Contractors concerned about data removal should promptly preserve devices, access logs, email records and server activity. Tender-platform credentials should be reviewed when employees depart, particularly where active bids and supplier quotes are accessible. Any requested injunction should identify the specific information at risk and the evidence supporting relief against each respondent.
Companies recruiting estimators or other commercial staff should take reasonable steps to avoid receiving their former employers’ confidential files. In this case, the evidence justified temporary orders against the two individuals, not against their new employer, and the merits remained unresolved.
