The trial judge was not referred to this court's decision in Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas, 2011 ONCA 460, 106 O.R. (3d) 427, which was released shortly before his decision in this case. In Agribrands, this court clarified the requirements for the cause of action for unlawful conduct conspiracy, including that each conspirator must be engaged either in unlawful conduct or conduct intended to harm the complaining party. For an action in unlawful conduct conspiracy, "the conduct must be actionable. It must be wrong in the law." (para. 33). In this case, Diamantouros owned his book of business and was entitled to leave without notice. The trial judge made no finding of unlawful conduct by Diamantouros or that his purpose in leaving was to harm Gentech. The appeal must therefore be allowed in respect of the claim for unlawful conduct conspiracy against the appellant Diamantouros.