Yes No Share to Facebook
Breach of Confidence:
Improper Use of Business Information Including Trade Secrets
Last Updated: June 12 2026
Question: What should I do if a former employee or contractor in Ontario misuses my confidential business information or trade secrets?
Answer: If someone you shared confidential information with later uses it without permission, you may have a breach of confidence claim, which generally requires showing the information was confidential, shared in confidence, and misused, as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; Lynxs Paralegal provides Legal Services across Ontario to help you document confidentiality, preserve evidence, send a demand letter, and pursue remedies like injunctions and damages. For fast, practical guidance to protect your business’s recipes, software, client lists, or processes, call (647) 249-6676 to book a confidential intake.
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
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 considerable multitude of inquiries featuring “lawyers in my vicinity” or “top lawyer in” typically signal a demand for prompt, effective legal assistance rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” operate under the same Law Society that governs lawyers and are permitted to advocate for clients in specific litigation situations. Skills in advocacy, legal interpretation, and procedural knowledge are fundamental to that position. Lynxs Paralegal provides legal representation within its authorized parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
