--00000000000039785905f821d97d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My recommendation is to remove it then given its potential for harm in the eyes of the Court, etc. Thanks, Tim. Shameema, let me know if you need further guidance. May be easier to jump on a call. On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 8:15=E2=80=AFAM Timothy Thomas wrot= e: > I would prefer to have it as a deterrent, knowing that we would never > enforce it. However if the legal opinion is to remove it, then I can live > with that. > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 8:59=E2=80=AFPM Steve Koyanagi > wrote: > >> Shameema, >> >> I recently worked with Tim on updating this clause in the Quebec CG >> agreement, which is attached. At a minimum we will need to have a unique >> provision in Quebec due to the laws there. >> >> As far as the rest of Canada, my inclination is we remove the 5k penalty= , >> but keep in the Agreement that the CG cannot solicit the client for the = 3 >> year period. >> >> Tim, do you have thoughts? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:29=E2=80=AFAM Shameema Cadersaibe > shameema.cadersaibe@thekey.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> Please find attached the current Caregiver Employment Agreement for >>> Canada provinces. >>> I look forward to hearing from you soon. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Shameema Cadersaibe >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 7:46=E2=80=AFAM Steve Koyanagi >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Can you send me the language for each province for review? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 7:06=E2=80=AFAM Shameema Cadersaibe >>> shameema.cadersaibe@thekey.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Steve, >>>>> >>>>> I am working on the Caregiver Universal Agreement, in regards to Non >>>>> Solicitation the current Agreement in place for the provinces has a $= 5000 >>>>> penalty fee to work directly with a client. Could you please give me = some >>>>> light on this? One location shows any time within 3 yrs and others do= n't >>>>> mention any time frame. This is quite Urgent for ICIMS, greatly appre= ciate >>>>> your help on this. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> *Shameema Cadersaibe* >>>>> Human Resources Manager - Canada >>>>> Email: shameema.cadersaibe@thekey.com >>>>> TheKey.com >>>>> [image: TheKey] >>>>> >>>>> > > -- > Tim Thomas > Head of Canada Division > *Please note my email has changed:* > tt@TheKey.com > (514) 591-9387 > TheKey.ca > [image: TheKey] > --00000000000039785905f821d97d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My recommendation is to remove it then given its potential= for harm in the eyes of the Court, etc. Thanks, Tim. Shameema, let= me know if you need further guidance. May be easier to jump on a call. On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 8:15=E2=80=AFAM Timothy Thomas < tt@thekey.com > wrote: I would prefer to have it= as a deterrent, knowing that we would never enforce it. However if the leg= al opinion=C2=A0is to remove it, then I can live with that.=C2=A0 = On Wed, Ma= r 29, 2023 at 8:59=E2