← University
Defamation, Privacy, and Economic Torts
0 of 4

A regional catering and event services company in southern Ontario had employed a senior sales manager for 7 years before that manager resigned to establish a competing business in the same geographic market. The departure itself was unremarkable, governed by a standard employment contract that included a 12-month non-solicitation clause covering existing clients but no broader non-compete restriction. Within 3 months of the manager's departure, the original company began losing contracts with clients it had served for years, including 2 municipal governments and a regional hospital that together represented approximately $340,000 in annual revenue.

The owner of the original company suspected the former manager was actively soliciting clients covered by the non-solicitation agreement and began gathering information. Through a contact at one of the municipal clients, the owner obtained internal emails suggesting the former manager had reached out to procurement staff before leaving her position, discussing the possibility of future business arrangements. The owner also discovered that the former manager's new company was circulating marketing materials to prospective clients that included comparative statements about food safety practices, implying the original company had experienced health inspection issues that had never actually occurred.

The situation escalated when the original company's owner posted a detailed account on a regional business networking platform describing the former manager's conduct, including allegations about dishonesty during her employment and claims that she had accessed confidential client pricing information before her departure. The post named the former manager's new business and urged other business owners in the region to avoid working with her. Within 2 weeks, 3 suppliers who had been negotiating contracts with the new catering company withdrew from those discussions, citing concerns about the allegations.

The former manager responded by sending a letter to the original company's remaining clients, attaching what she described as evidence of workplace safety violations at the original company's food preparation facility, including photographs taken during her employment that showed kitchen conditions and identifiable staff members. The letter also included salary information for several current employees, presented as evidence that the original company underpaid its workers compared to industry standards.

Both parties retained counsel. The original company claimed damages exceeding $500,000 for lost contracts and reputational harm. The former manager counterclaimed for defamation and interference with her new business relationships, seeking $750,000 in damages. The underlying questions concern which statements and conduct by each party may attract liability, what defences may apply, and how the overlapping claims of reputational harm, privacy violation, and economic interference interact under Canadian tort law.

Inducing Breach of Contract: When Interfering With Another's Business Relationships Is Unlawful

In the competitive landscape of Canadian business, relationships between enterprises rarely exist in isolation. Suppliers, customers, employees, and contractors form intricate webs of contractual obligations that sustain commercial activity across every sector. When one party deliberately interferes with these relationships, causing another to break their contractual promises, the law provides a remedy through the tort of inducing breach of contract. This economic tort occupies a vital space in Canadian jurisprudence, protecting the sanctity of contractual relationships while acknowledging that competitive markets necessarily involve some degree of rivalry for business connections. Understanding when such interference crosses from legitimate competition into actionable wrongdoing is essential for any business owner, sole proprietor, or non-profit operator navigating the Canadian commercial environment.

The tort of inducing breach of contract, sometimes called intentional interference with contractual relations, developed in English common law and has been firmly established in Canadian jurisprudence for well over a century. At its core, this tort recognizes that contracts represent more than private agreements between two parties; they create legal relationships that third parties must respect. When someone outside a contractual relationship intentionally causes one of the contracting parties to breach their obligations, the innocent party who suffers loss as a result may pursue a legal remedy against the interfering third party. This principle applies throughout the common law provinces of Canada, including British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and the Atlantic provinces, though the specific application may vary based on provincial precedent and procedural rules.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $79 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.