Canadian law has long recognized that businesses operate within a web of economic relationships, and that wrongful interference with those relationships can cause devastating harm. While defamation protects reputation and privacy torts guard personal information, a distinct category of legal wrongs exists to address situations where one party deliberately disrupts the economic interests of another through unlawful means. These economic torts, sometimes called business torts, provide remedies when competitors, former business partners, disgruntled employees, or other parties intentionally damage a business's ability to earn revenue, maintain contractual relationships, or operate freely in the marketplace. For small and medium-sized business owners, sole proprietors, and non-profit operators across Canada, understanding these principles matters because both sides of this legal framework create exposure. A business owner might find themselves victimized by a competitor's wrongful conduct, entitled to pursue compensation through the courts, or alternatively might inadvertently engage in conduct that exposes their own enterprise to substantial liability.
The foundation of economic tort law rests on balancing two competing values that Canadian courts have wrestled with for over a century. On one hand, free and vigorous competition serves the public interest by driving innovation, lowering prices, and expanding consumer choice. Businesses should be able to compete aggressively, win contracts, hire talented employees, and capture market share from rivals without fear of legal liability simply for succeeding in the marketplace. On the other hand, competition must occur within boundaries. When one party deliberately sets out to harm another's economic interests using unlawful methods rather than superior products, services, or efficiency, the law provides a remedy. The tort of unlawful interference with economic relations, sometimes called intentional interference with economic interests, occupies the centre of this framework. It applies when a defendant has intentionally caused economic harm to the plaintiff through conduct that the defendant knew to be unlawful and that was directed at the plaintiff. This formulation, refined through decades of jurisprudence in common law provinces, requires more than mere awareness that harm might result from lawful competitive activity. The plaintiff must establish that the defendant specifically intended to cause harm, that the means employed were independently unlawful, and that the unlawful conduct was the cause of the economic loss suffered.