Yes No Share to Facebook
Breach of Confidence:
Improper Use of Business Information Including Trade Secrets
Last Updated: July 02 2026
Question: Who can help me if a contractor or former partner misused my company’s confidential business recipes or processes in Ontario?
Answer: If DK Legal Practice can’t help directly, a Paralegal at DK Legal Practice in Ontario can help you understand whether your situation may fit a breach of confidence claim (confidential information was shared under an obligation of confidence and was misused), including the core approach described in Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574. They can also help you organize evidence, draft practical demand or next-step letters, and assess risks and remedies so you can protect trade secrets and reduce damage; call (416) 906-6663 to get started.
Misused Business Secrets
The success of a business may rely heavily upon secret recipes, proprietary software, unique systems, and customized processes; and accordingly, information relating to these key aspects may be highly valued with misuse of such confidential information quite harmful. In tort law, 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.
NOTE: A significant number of inquiries about “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a requirement for prompt and competent legal assistance, rather than pointing to a particular job title. In Ontario, the same Law Society that regulates lawyers also oversees licensed paralegals, permitting them to represent clients in specific litigation scenarios. Core aspects of this role include advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. DK Legal Practice provides legal representation within its licensed authority, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and beneficial outcomes for clients.