In $1977,$ the plaintiff, Meunier, agreed to purchase St$.$ Charles Hotel $($Timmins$)$ Limited for $$190,000.$ The deal included a tavern and hotel in Timmins, Ontario. In coming to an agreement, both parties used the same lawyer, who previously worked as the legal advisor to the defendant, Cloutier. The purchaser did not seek out the services of a second lawyer.

The court quoted the following clause from the final agreement, which was executed in the lawyer$$s office:

Cloutier covenants that he will not, for a period of five $(5)$ years from the date hereof, either directly or indirectly, carry on or be engaged in as principal, partner, associate or employee in a tavern or hotel business, within the corporate limits of the City of Timmins, and in case of a breach of this covenant, Cloutier shall pay to Meunier the sum of Fifty Thousand $($$$50,000\mathrm{.}00)$ Dollars as liquidated damages and not as a penalty.

Meunier$$s recollection of when the parties met to execute the agreement included his response to this non$-$competition clause when the lawyer read it out loud. Meunier said that he was happy with the clause because it afforded him some protection. The court viewed Meunier$$s recollection as the more plausible.

After the sale, Cloutier moved to Florida where he met and married his second and present wife, May Cloutier. The Cloutiers lived a few years in Florida, during which time they took part in different business ventures. The proceeds from these ventures were split evenly between them. In $1980,$ they returned to Canada.

Cloutier accompanied his wife on a search for a new business in Sudbury, Kapuskasing, and, lastly, Timmins. Nothing came of their search in either Sudbury or Kapuskasing, and they eventually purchased, renovated, and opened the Maple Leaf Hotel business in Timmins in December, $1981.$ The defendant$$s wife, May Cloutier, was the legal owner of the hotel. She was also aware of the non$-$competition clause in the sale agreement for the St$.$ Charles Hotel, but she denied that her husband had any interest in the new hotel at all. However, the Cloutiers did admit that the defendant completed work required by the Liquor Licence Board to transfer licences of the new hotel. He also worked on renovations to the hotel, which included the basement, where a new dining room was opened. In addition, he set up the books for his wife in December, $1981,$ when the hotel began its operations.

The court found that the defendant was not involved in the operation of the business from the outset. He did carpentry work and was put on the payroll in late $1980$ or early $1981,$ but he did most of the things complained of$,$ which are normally associated with the running of a hotel, beginning in July, $1981,$ when his wife took ill. Even then, someone else was, officially at least, engaged in the management of the business.

The court found that most of the evidence presented led it to conclude that there was competition, and Meunier could have been affected. The period of time that the court identified was the nine months beginning around July, $1981,$ until the end of the five$-$year period in the agreement. During this time, Cloutier ordered supplies and was regularly present at the hotel, instructing staff, seating customers, and signing cheques and bank documents. What was the breach of contract alleged in this case?