Breach of Confidence: Improper Use of Business Information Including Trade Secrets | White Owl Legal


Last Updated: , 68 days ago.

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.  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.

Note: For immediate help, please contact White Owl Legal by phone at: (289) 839-3075 to retain services or to discuss any specific questions that you may have.

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.

4

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.

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: White Owl Legal

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 White Owl Legal. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.173

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, logos and/or trademarks are those of their respective owners.

This webpage was served on: October 29 2026 at 02:02:45AM Eastern.

.





Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A