Last Updated: August 24 2026
How can I prove breach of confidence if someone misused my confidential business recipe or process in Ontario?
Lynxs Paralegal can help you assess whether your facts fit the tort of breach of confidence, which generally requires showing that the information had the necessary quality of confidence, was communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and was then misused to your detriment, per Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574. If you have licensing, NDA, or email trail evidence showing the disclosure was confidential and that the recipient used it without authorization, Ontario counsel can also help you identify remedies and next steps before the misuse expands, call (647) 249-6676 for legal services guidance.
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: Please contact Lynxs Paralegal by phone at: (647) 249-6676 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.
NOTE: A large number of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a demand for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are supervised by the same Law Society that governs lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specific litigation issues. Critical to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Lynxs Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidential preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and advantageous resolutions for clients.
