Yes No Share to Facebook
Breach of Confidence:
Improper Use of Business Information Including Trade Secrets
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: I think someone used my confidential business recipe in Ontario; what steps should I take to pursue a breach of confidence claim?
Answer: If you believe confidential business information was shared in confidence and later misused, White Owl Legal can help you assess whether a breach of confidence claim may apply under the Lac Minerals framework (confidential information, communicated in confidence, and unauthorized misuse) and gather the evidence needed to move forward as fast as possible in Ontario. For an initial paralegal review and next steps, call (289) 839-3075 for guidance on documenting the disclosure, showing unauthorized use, and protecting your position.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
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. The field of tort law includes a cause of action, meaning right to bring a lawsuit, known as breach of confidence which relates to the improper use of information by a person or other business with whom the confidential information was previously shared. Interestingly, where breach of confidence involves information that was previously shared, the wrongfulness arises from improper use of the information rather than theft of the information.
Note: Please contact White Owl Legal by phone at: (289) 839-3075 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.
NOTE: A significant number of online searches for “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than just a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are essential to that function. White Owl Legal provides legal representation within its licensed mandate/scope, emphasising strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at securing effective and favourable resolutions for clients.