Breach of Confidence: Improper Use of Business Information Including Trade Secrets | PKM Legal Services
Helpful?
Yes No Share to Facebook

Breach of Confidence:

Improper Use of Business Information Including Trade Secrets



Last Updated: August 24 2026

Question: How do I prove a breach of confidence claim in Ontario when someone misused my confidential business information?

Answer: In Ontario, you typically prove breach of confidence by showing the information had the necessary quality of confidence, it was communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and the recipient misused it to your detriment, as outlined by the Supreme Court in Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574.  For practical guidance on evidence (like NDA or licensing terms, access logs, and how the misuse occurred), PKM Legal Services can help you assess claim strength and next steps for a business-to-business dispute involving misused recipes, processes, or proprietary software.  Call (519) 410-5250 to book a paralegal consultation in Ontario and protect your confidential information without delay.

Add this website to Google Preferred Sources


Misused Business Secrets

The success of a business may rely heavily upon secret recipes, proprietary software, unique systems, and customized processes; and accordingly, information relating to these key aspects may be highly valued with misuse of such confidential information quite harmful. In tort law, breach of confidence involves the wrongful use of information that was openly shared with the party that subsequently misuses the secretive information; and in this respect, breach of confidence differs from theft of trade secrets which would involve an element of misappropriation.

Note: Please contact PKM Legal Services by phone at: (519) 410-5250 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.

The Law

As per the case of Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574, a Supreme Court decision, the elements that must be proven within a breach of confidence case are:

  • The information conveyed was confidential;
  • The information was communicated in confidence; and
  • The information was misused by the party to whom it was communicated.

Specifically, per Lac Minerals Ltd., the Supreme Court said:


I can deal quite briefly with the breach of confidence issue.  I have already indicated that Lac breached a duty of confidence owed to Corona.  The test for whether there has been a breach of confidence is not seriously disputed by the parties.  It consists in establishing three elements:  that the information conveyed was confidential, that it was communicated in confidence, and that it was misused by the party to whom it was communicated.  In Coco v. A. N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd., [1969] R.P.C. 41 (Ch.), Megarry J.  (as he then was) put it as follows at p. 47:

In my judgment, three elements are normally required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to succeed.  First, the information itself, in the words of Lord Greene, M.R. in the Saltman case on page 215, must "have the necessary quality of confidence about it."  Secondly, that information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.  Thirdly, there must be an unauthorized use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it . .  .

As a particularly interesting example case, Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142 involved the licensing of the recipe for Clamato juice by Duffy-Mott (a company later acquired by Cadbury Schweppes Inc.) to Caesar Canning who then contracted production to FBI Foods Ltd.  After Cadbury Schweppes acquired Duffy-Mott, Caesar Canning was notified of termination of the licensing agreement; however, FBI, who later acquired assets of Caesar Canning, made use of the recipe despite a lack of authorization to do so.

Conclusion

Improper use of secretive information may constitute as the tort of breach of confidence where information was confidential, information was communicated within a confidential context, and the information was then misused by the party that received the communication.

At
Our Desk Now!
Need Help? Let's Get Started Today

NOTE: Do not send confidential information through the web form.  Use the web form only for your introduction.   Learn Why?
5

NOTE: A significant quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicates a pressing necessity for competent legal assistance rather than a distinct occupational label.  In Ontario, accredited paralegals fall under the regulation of the same Law Society that governs lawyers and possess the authority to advocate for clients in specific litigation issues.  Core elements of this position include advocacy, legal evaluation, and procedural expertise.  PKM Legal Services provides legal advocacy under its sanctioned mandate/scope, focusing on strategic alignment, evidence preparation, and persuasive representation aimed at attaining efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.

AR, BN, CA+|EN, DT, ES, FA, FR, GU, HE, HI
IT, KO, PA, PT, RU, TA, TL, UK, UR, VI, ZH
Send a Message to: PKM Legal Services

NOTE: Do not send confidential details about your case.  Using this website does not establish a legal-representative/client relationship.  Use the website for your introduction with PKM Legal Services. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.147

Application Hosted on Microsoft Azure Cloud Web Servers | Analytics by Google
Let’s Encrypt SSL certificate is a service provided by the Internet Security Research Group (ISRG)
All names, trademarks and/or logos are those of their respective owners.

This webpage was served on: September 13 2026 at 04:16:20PM Eastern.

.




Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A