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


Question: What should I do if a former employee or contractor is using my confidential business information or trade secrets in Ontario?

Answer: Start by gathering evidence that the information was confidential, shared in confidence, and then misused, then send a written demand to stop use, preserve data, and return all materials, and consider urgent steps such as an injunction and a civil claim for breach of confidence as set out in Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574.  PKM Legal Services provides paralegal services for Ontario businesses, helping you document confidentiality, prepare demand letters, and navigate Small Claims Court or related civil processes to reduce harm and protect your business secrets.

Misused Business Secrets

In business, the product recipes, proprietary software, systems and processes, among many other things, may be highly valuable and the misuse of such confidential information may result in considerable harm.  Generally, 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.

The Law

Per the Supreme Court in the case of Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574, the elements requiring proof so to constitute 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 utilising “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a demand for prompt and competent legal assistance, rather than a precise professional designation.  In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and can represent clients in specific legal proceedings.  Advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural adeptness are fundamental to this role.  PKM Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed authority, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy with the goal of achieving effective and beneficial 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: 216.73.216.123



Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A