Yes No Share to Facebook
Breach of Confidence:
Improper Use of Business Information Including Trade Secrets
Last Updated: August 26 2026
Question: In Ontario, how do you prove breach of confidence when someone misuses a business recipe or proprietary process the other party shared under NDA?
Answer: In Ontario, you can pursue a breach of confidence claim when the other party used information that had the necessary quality of confidence, was communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and was then misused in an unauthorized way that caused detriment, as set out in Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574. This framework also fits scenarios like Cadbury’s recipe misuse discussed in Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142. If you believe your confidential business information was misused, Paladin LLP can help you assess evidence, map the confidentiality context, and outline next steps for a timely resolution, call (289) 925-1572 for a free 1-hour consultation.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
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 considerable number of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a need for prompt and capable legal support rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, the Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, who are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Key to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Paladin LLP provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and effective advocacy aimed at securing favourable and efficient outcomes for clients.