Intentional interference with economic relations

Alleslev-Krofchak v. Valcom Limited, 2010 ONCA 557, released today online provides a clear statement of the elements of intentional interference with economic relations:

[48] If there was any uncertainty about the elements of the tort of intentional interference with economic relations, I think recent jurisprudence has provided much clarity. The most important case is OBG v. Allan, [2008] 1 A.C. 1 (“OBG”), which was issued on May 2, 2007 by the House of Lords. The three earlier cases from this court that the trial judge referred to all precede this judgment.

[49] In OBG, the House of Lords provided a detailed analysis of the two intentional torts of inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations. Its express purpose was to clarify the confusion that seemed to have developed in defining the elements of both torts. In Correia, this court described OBG this way at para. 97:

In OBG, the House of Lords determined to clarify and specifically define the elements of each tort. In doing so, the Lords corrected and, where necessary, overruled formerly precedential cases that, in hindsight, had introduced confusion and error into the definition of the two torts. The result is a clear definition of the two torts and their elements. The Lords were unanimous in all aspects of their definition of the two torts except one – Lord Nicholls disagreed on the scope of the concept of “unlawful means” in the tort of intentionally causing loss by unlawful interference with economic relations.

[50] Apart from the debate about the scope of “unlawful means”, the Lords agreed that intentional interference with economic relations requires that the defendant intend to cause loss to the plaintiff, either as an end in itself or as a means of, for example, enriching himself. If the loss suffered by the plaintiff is merely a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions, that is not enough. Moreover, there must be a causal connection between the unlawful means and the loss suffered by the plaintiff. Neither of these components are new to the jurisprudence in Ontario. In Lineal, for example, the absence of an intention to harm the plaintiff was fatal to the successful assertion of the tort. Both of these components were addressed by the trial judge in this case.

…

[60] In my view, therefore, it is now clear that to qualify as “unlawful means”, the defendant’s actions (i) cannot be actionable directly by the plaintiff and (ii) must be directed at a third party, which then becomes the vehicle through which harm is caused to the plaintiff.