Breach of Confidence: Improper Use of Business Information Including Trade Secrets | Gutoski Legal Services


Last Updated: August 22 2026

Question:How can Ontario paralegals help me if my business recipe or proprietary process was shared in confidence and then misused?

Answer:Gutoski Legal Services can help you assess a breach of confidence claim in Ontario if confidential business information was shared in confidence, then misused, typically requiring proof that the information had the necessary quality of confidence, was communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and was used without authorization to your detriment.   If you share what happened, we can explain your likely legal options, document the confidential context and misuse, and outline next steps for a complaint or lawsuit.   To discuss your situation, call (289) 902-0227 for a paralegal consultation in Ontario.

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.

Note: Please contact Gutoski Legal Services by phone at: (289) 902-0227 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.

At
Our Desk Now!
Need Help? Let's Get Started Today

NOTE: Do not send confidential information through the web form.  Use the web form only for your introduction.   Learn Why?
5

NOTE: A significant amount of online searches for terms like “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a demand for prompt and skilled legal assistance rather than a particular professional designation.  In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specified litigation issues.  Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are vital to this function.  Gutoski Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and effective advocacy with the goal of attaining swift and beneficial outcomes 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: Gutoski Legal Services

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 Gutoski Legal Services. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.217.116

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: September 27 2026 at 01:46:17AM Eastern.

.






Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A