Civil conspiracy is a complex area of tort law that addresses situations where two or more parties collaborate to cause harm to another party. This collaboration can involve lawful or unlawful means, and the resulting damage is a key element for establishing a civil conspiracy. This practice area is crucial for businesses and individuals seeking redress for coordinated actions that have caused them harm.
The tort of civil conspiracy arises when two or more parties agree to act together with the intent to cause harm to another party. This agreement can transform otherwise legal actions into actionable torts simply due to the combined intent to cause harm. The rationale behind this tort is that combined actions can be more harmful than isolated actions, thus justifying the need for legal recourse.
Civil conspiracy differs from criminal conspiracy in that the latter does not require any harm to have actually occurred, merely the agreement to commit a crime. In contrast, for a civil conspiracy claim to succeed, the plaintiff must show that they suffered actual damage as a result of the conspiracy.
In the context of civil law, the presence of a conspiratorial agreement can turn otherwise legal acts into tortious conduct. For example, two individuals might agree to engage in competitive business practices that are legal on their own, but when combined with the intent to harm a competitor, these actions can give rise to a civil conspiracy claim. This underscores the unique nature of this tort, where the focus is on the intent and agreement rather than the legality of the acts themselves.
The scope of civil conspiracy is broad, encompassing various contexts beyond commercial disputes. It can arise in familial disputes, such as disagreements over inheritance or lottery winnings, where coordinated actions by family members cause harm to one of their own. This flexibility allows civil conspiracy to address a wide range of harmful collaborations.
The modern tort of civil conspiracy has its roots in several key cases decided by the House of Lords in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Initially, the tort was closely linked to protecting trade interests. For example, in Sorrell v. Smith, the House of Lords held that a combination to injure another’s trade was actionable even if no unlawful acts were employed.
In Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. Ltd. v. Veitch, the scope of the tort was expanded beyond trade interests to include any agreements aimed at causing harm or achieving unlawful objectives. This case also established two distinct types of conspiracy: conspiracy to injure and conspiracy to use unlawful means.
The foundations of the tort were further solidified in Canadian law through the landmark case of Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized two types of actionable conspiracy: predominant purpose conspiracy and unlawful means conspiracy. This distinction remains central to the understanding and application of the tort in contemporary Canadian law.
A predominant purpose conspiracy arises when two or more parties combine or agree with the deliberate aim of inflicting harm on another individual or entity. In other words, the very essence of this tort is an intentional plot wherein causing injury to the plaintiff is not merely an incidental effect, but rather the driving motivation behind the conspirators’ actions. Under Ontario common law, establishing such a conspiracy typically requires proof of (1) an agreement between two or more defendants, (2) a predominant purpose to cause harm to the plaintiff, and (3) actual injury suffered as a result.
The hallmark of this cause of action is that the conspirators act primarily out of malice or ill-will toward the plaintiff. Rather than being driven by a legitimate business interest or a broader economic objective, their overriding aim is to harm or sabotage the plaintiff’s interests. The conspirators need not necessarily undertake illegal actions in and of themselves; what matters is their shared intention to inflict harm and the coordinated efforts they employ to realize that intention. Courts often examine the communications, relationships, and overall conduct of the alleged conspirators to determine whether malice underpins their behaviour. If the trier of fact concludes that the predominant or overriding purpose of their actions was, in essence, to injure the plaintiff rather than to advance any lawful economic or competitive goal, liability for conspiracy can be imposed.
In practice, proving predominant purpose conspiracy frequently involves tracing a pattern of behaviour that lacks commercial rationale other than harming the plaintiff. This might be demonstrated by evidence that the defendants stood to gain little or no benefit from the scheme aside from the detriment inflicted on the target. If established, the remedy can include damages to compensate for the loss suffered, and in some cases, the court may consider injunctive relief or even punitive damages, depending on the severity and deliberateness of the conduct.
An unlawful means conspiracy occurs when multiple parties agree or combine to use unlawful methods—whether criminal, tortious, or otherwise legally prohibited—knowing that their actions will harm the plaintiff. Under Ontario law, the focus in an unlawful means conspiracy is not solely on the conspirators’ motive (although intent to injure often plays a role), but more crucially on whether they employed “unlawful means” in executing their plan. The term “unlawful means” can encompass a broad range of conduct, such as fraud, intimidation, trespass, breach of statute, or other actionable wrongs.
To establish unlawful means conspiracy, a plaintiff generally must prove three elements: (1) an agreement or concerted action between two or more parties, (2) the use of unlawful means in furtherance of that agreement, and (3) resultant harm or loss to the plaintiff. Crucially, the conspirators either intend to injure the plaintiff through their unlawful conduct, or they know (or ought reasonably to know) that harm to the plaintiff is a likely outcome. The agreement need not be formalized in writing; even a tacit understanding or parallel actions can suffice if the court is persuaded that the defendants acted in concert to achieve a common objective.
One important distinction in unlawful means conspiracy is that the defendants might claim they pursued legitimate commercial ends (for instance, to drive competition or secure certain economic benefits), but if the methods chosen are demonstrably illegal or tortious, liability can attach regardless of any secondary, legitimate goal. Courts will scrutinize whether the harm inflicted on the plaintiff flows directly from the unlawful acts collectively undertaken by the conspirators. If it does, the plaintiff may recover damages for the losses suffered. In some instances, the court may further award punitive damages, especially if the wrongdoing is egregious and demonstrates a blatant disregard for legal obligations or the plaintiff’s rights.
To establish a claim for civil conspiracy, the plaintiff must demonstrate several key elements:
1. Agreement Between Two or More Parties: There must be a clear agreement between the parties to act in concert. This agreement can be explicit or inferred from the conduct of the parties. The presence of an agreement distinguishes civil conspiracy from other torts, emphasizing the collaborative aspect of the harmful actions.
2. Intent to Cause Harm: The parties must have the intent to cause harm to the plaintiff. This can be a predominant purpose to injure or an intent to achieve an unlawful objective. Intent is a crucial element, as it differentiates civil conspiracy from mere coincidental or independent actions that result in harm.
3. Use of Lawful or Unlawful Means: The actions taken can be lawful but become tortious due to the conspiratorial agreement, or they can involve inherently unlawful means. This element highlights the versatility of civil conspiracy in addressing various forms of harmful conduct, whether through legal or illegal actions.
4. Resulting Damage to the Plaintiff: The plaintiff must have suffered actual damage as a result of the conspiracy. This is a crucial element distinguishing civil conspiracy from criminal conspiracy. Without demonstrable harm, a civil conspiracy claim cannot succeed.
In proving these elements, the plaintiff must provide evidence of the conspirators’ agreement and intent. This can include documentation of communications between the conspirators, witness testimony, or other forms of evidence demonstrating the coordinated nature of the actions. Additionally, the plaintiff must show a causal link between the conspiratorial actions and the harm suffered.
The complexity of proving a civil conspiracy claim often involves a detailed examination of the interactions and motivations of the parties involved. Courts may consider various factors, such as the timing of the actions, the nature of the relationship between the conspirators, and any patterns of behaviour that indicate a coordinated effort to cause harm.
Several defences can be raised in response to a claim of civil conspiracy:
Justification: If the predominant purpose of the conspiracy was justified, such as protecting legitimate business interests, this can negate the element of intent to harm. This is particularly relevant in cases where the actions taken were lawful and aimed at achieving a legitimate objective. For instance, competitive business strategies that inadvertently harm a competitor but are intended to benefit the conspirators’ business might be considered justified.
Statutory Defences: Certain statutes provide defences for actions taken in the context of labour disputes. For instance, the Rights of Labour Act in Ontario and the Labour Relations Code in British Columbia protect trade union members from liability for actions taken in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, provided those actions would not be actionable if done by individuals acting alone. These statutory protections recognize the unique context of labour relations and the need to balance workers’ rights with potential harms.
Absence of Agreement: Demonstrating that there was no agreement between the parties can be a strong defence. If the alleged conspirators did not actually agree to act together, the claim for civil conspiracy cannot succeed. This defence can involve showing that the actions were independent and not part of a coordinated effort.
Lack of Intention: Showing that the parties did not have the requisite intent to cause harm can also serve as a defence. This can involve proving that the actions were taken without any malicious intent or that the harm caused was incidental and not the primary objective. For example, if the actions were aimed at achieving a legitimate business goal and the harm to the plaintiff was an unintended consequence, this lack of intent can negate the conspiracy claim.
Legitimate Business Activities: Engaging in legitimate business activities, even if they cause harm to a competitor, can be a defence against a civil conspiracy claim. If the actions taken were part of standard business practices and not specifically intended to harm the plaintiff, this defence can be effective. Courts recognize the need for businesses to operate competitively and not be unduly restricted by conspiracy claims.
Statutory Immunity: In some cases, statutory immunity may protect the defendants from liability. For instance, certain regulatory or governmental actions might be immune from civil conspiracy claims if they are authorized by law and conducted within the scope of that authority. This defence underscores the importance of understanding the legal context in which the actions occurred.
Proof of Loss: Since civil conspiracy requires proof of actual damage, a defence can be mounted by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not suffer any actual harm as a result of the alleged conspiracy. This can involve challenging the causation between the conspiratorial actions and the plaintiff’s damages.
Public Interest: In certain situations, actions taken in the public interest may provide a defence against a civil conspiracy claim. If the alleged conspiratorial actions were aimed at achieving a significant public benefit, this could negate the element of wrongful intent or justify the actions taken.
If you believe you have been harmed by a civil conspiracy or if you are facing allegations of conspiratorial conduct, reach out to our Toronto commercial litigation lawyers. We represent clients across Ontario and are committed to guiding you through every stage of your case.
Disclaimer: The answers provided in this FAQ section are general in nature and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. Each individual case is unique, and a separate analysis is required to address specific context and fact situations. For comprehensive guidance tailored to your situation, we welcome you to contact our expert team.
A civil conspiracy occurs when two or more parties agree to act together with the intent to cause harm to another party. This agreement can make otherwise lawful actions tortious if the combined intent is to harm someone. There are two primary forms of civil conspiracy: predominant purpose conspiracy and unlawful means conspiracy.
Predominant Purpose Conspiracy involves an agreement where the primary aim is to injure the plaintiff. The actions taken might be lawful on their own, but the intent to harm makes them tortious. Proving this type of conspiracy can be challenging as it requires clear evidence of the conspirators’ intent to harm.
Unlawful Means Conspiracy involves an agreement to achieve an objective through unlawful means. Here, the focus is not on the intent to harm but on the use of illegal actions to achieve the conspirators’ goals. If these unlawful actions result in harm to the plaintiff, a civil conspiracy claim can be made.
Both forms require evidence of an agreement between the parties, the intent to cause harm, and resulting damage to the plaintiff. This evidence can include communications, witness testimony, and other documentation demonstrating the coordinated nature of the actions. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for anyone involved in or affected by alleged conspiratorial conduct.
The tort of civil conspiracy has evolved significantly from its origins in medieval times, where it provided civil redress for the abuse of the court’s criminal process. In the 19th century, civil conspiracy developed primarily to address socially dangerous activities by organized labour and rival entrepreneurs. This period saw the courts using the tort to regulate industrial and commercial disputes.
Key cases, such as Sorrell v. Smith and Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. Ltd. v. Veitch, expanded the scope of civil conspiracy beyond trade interests to any agreement aimed at causing harm or achieving unlawful objectives. The landmark Canadian case, Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd., refined the elements of civil conspiracy, recognizing predominant purpose conspiracy and unlawful means conspiracy.
Over the years, civil conspiracy has adapted to new societal and commercial contexts. For instance, the rise of digital communication has introduced new avenues for conspiratorial actions, requiring nuanced legal interpretations to address these modern developments. The tort’s adaptability ensures its relevance in addressing coordinated harm in various contexts, from commercial disputes to familial conflicts.
To successfully prove a civil conspiracy claim, the plaintiff must establish four key elements:
Agreement Between Two or More Parties: There must be a clear agreement to act in concert. This agreement can be explicit or inferred from the parties’ conduct. The agreement distinguishes civil conspiracy from other torts, emphasizing the collaborative aspect of the harmful actions.
Intent to Cause Harm: The parties must intend to cause harm to the plaintiff. This can be a predominant purpose to injure or an intent to achieve an unlawful objective. Intent is crucial as it differentiates civil conspiracy from coincidental or independent actions that result in harm.
Use of Lawful or Unlawful Means: The actions taken can be lawful but become tortious due to the conspiratorial agreement, or they can involve inherently unlawful means. This element highlights the versatility of civil conspiracy in addressing various forms of harmful conduct.
Resulting Damage to the Plaintiff: The plaintiff must have suffered actual damage as a result of the conspiracy. This requirement distinguishes civil conspiracy from criminal conspiracy, which does not require actual harm.
Proving these elements involves providing evidence of the conspirators’ agreement and intent, such as communications, witness testimony, or other documentation. Additionally, the plaintiff must demonstrate a causal link between the conspiratorial actions and the harm suffered.
Several defences can be raised in response to a civil conspiracy claim:
Justification: If the predominant purpose of the conspiracy was justified, such as protecting legitimate business interests, this can negate the intent to harm. For example, competitive business strategies that inadvertently harm a competitor but are intended to benefit the conspirators’ business might be justified.
Statutory Defences: Certain statutes provide defences for actions taken in the context of labour disputes. The Rights of Labour Act in Ontario and the Labour Relations Code in British Columbia protect trade union members from liability for actions taken in furtherance of a trade dispute, provided those actions would not be actionable if done by individuals acting alone.
Absence of Agreement: Demonstrating that there was no agreement between the parties can be a strong defence. If the alleged conspirators did not agree to act together, the claim for civil conspiracy cannot succeed.
Lack of Intention: Showing that the parties did not intend to cause harm can also serve as a defence. This can involve proving that the actions were taken without malicious intent or that the harm caused was incidental and not the primary objective.
Legitimate Business Activities: Engaging in legitimate business activities, even if they cause harm to a competitor, can be a defence against a civil conspiracy claim. If the actions taken were part of standard business practices and not specifically intended to harm the plaintiff, this defence can be effective.
Victims of civil conspiracy can seek several remedies, primarily aimed at compensating for the harm suffered. The main remedies include:
Injunctions: Courts can issue injunctions to prevent ongoing or future harmful actions by the conspirators. This is particularly useful in stopping actions that could cause further damage to the plaintiff.
Damages: Plaintiffs can seek compensatory damages for the losses incurred due to the conspiracy. This includes pecuniary losses and, in some cases, damages for emotional distress or reputational harm.
Punitive Damages: In cases where the defendants’ actions were particularly egregious or malicious, courts may award punitive damages. These are intended to punish the wrongdoers and deter similar conduct in the future.
Costs: Successful plaintiffs may also be awarded legal costs, covering the expenses incurred in bringing the lawsuit.
Declaratory Relief: Courts can issue declaratory judgments, officially recognizing the wrongful conduct of the conspirators. This can be important for the plaintiff’s reputation and future dealings.
These remedies aim to provide comprehensive relief to the victim, addressing both the immediate and long-term impacts of the conspiratorial actions. The choice of remedy depends on the specific circumstances of the case and the nature of the harm suffered.
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service
