The tort of intimidation is a legal claim that arises when one party (the defendant) uses unlawful threats or coercive pressure to compel another (the plaintiff or a third party) into doing—or refraining from doing—something, thereby causing harm. Although it often appears in commercial disputes, intimidation can arise in personal contexts, workplace conflicts, or any scenario where an individual wields an illegitimate threat to force compliance. In Ontario and throughout Canada, the courts have recognized the tort of intimidation as part of the broader family of “economic torts,” which protect against unfair business or personal practices.
One of the unique characteristics of this tort is its focus on unlawful means or threats of illegal action. Merely pressuring someone to change their behavior is not necessarily tortious—there must be an element of unlawfulness, such as threatening violence, making demands contrary to public policy, or using improper leverage to influence a decision. The rationale behind recognizing intimidation in Canadian law is to ensure that individuals and businesses can operate free from coercive tactics that distort normal decision-making processes. Where other torts may not capture subtle forms of harm from threats (for example, defamation or negligence might not apply), the tort of intimidation fills in the gap, particularly in commercial or contractual disputes.
To establish intimidation, plaintiffs generally must prove four critical elements:
Threat of an Unlawful Act
The defendant must issue a threat or ultimatum that involves unlawful means, such as violence, property damage, or illegal economic pressure. A mere threat to take a valid legal step—like filing a lawsuit—usually does not suffice. Courts look for evidence that the threatened conduct violates criminal law, a regulatory framework, or recognized civil obligations.
Intent or Knowledge
The defendant must intend to cause the plaintiff (or a third party) to act in a particular way or know that their threat is likely to force compliance. This intention can be direct—aimed specifically at the plaintiff—or indirect, geared toward a third party but harming the plaintiff as a result.
Compliance Induced by the Threat
The plaintiff or third party must actually yield to the threat, changing their behaviour against their will. If the threatened party ignores the ultimatum, thereby suffering no resulting harm, there is typically no cause of action. The courts will ask whether the plaintiff would have acted the same way absent the intimidation.
Resulting Harm or Economic Loss
Finally, the plaintiff must show they suffered a tangible loss—often financial or contractual disadvantage—because of this coerced compliance. For example, a party might back out of a profitable deal under duress, forgoing business opportunities or incurring penalties.
When all these elements converge, the law deems the defendant’s coercive conduct sufficiently wrongful to merit liability. Remedies may include damages for lost profits, compensation for emotional distress in certain contexts, or injunctive relief to halt ongoing intimidation.
A Threat by the Defendant
The threat must be coercive and contain an “or else” or “unless” ultimatum. It cannot be a mere warning or statement of fact; it must impose pressure on the plaintiff or third party to act against their will. For a threat to qualify under the tort of intimidation, it must be clear, coercive, and involve unlawful means. The nature of the threat often dictates the severity of the claim and the resulting damages.
For example, in the case of Rookes v. Barnard, the defendants, who were union officials, threatened to strike unless the plaintiff was dismissed. This threat led to the plaintiff losing his job, demonstrating a clear and coercive threat.
To Commit an Unlawful Act
The threat must involve unlawful means, which can include criminal acts, tortious acts, or breaches of statute. A threat to do something that the defendant is legally entitled to do does not constitute unlawful means. For example, threatening legal action for a genuine grievance is lawful, while threatening to breach a contract or commit a crime is not.
In Central Canada Potash Co. v. Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court of Canada held that threats involving unlawful acts, such as breaches of contract, can constitute the tort of intimidation if the threatened party is coerced into acting against their interests.
Intention to Injure the Plaintiff
The defendant must have intended to cause harm to the plaintiff through the threat. This intention can be shown through direct evidence or inferred from the circumstances. The tort of intimidation is not applicable to threats made without the intention to cause harm, even if harm results.
Submission to the Threat
The person threatened must submit to the threat for the tort to be complete. If the plaintiff resists the threat and no action is taken in response, the tort of intimidation does not apply.
Damage Suffered by the Plaintiff
The plaintiff must prove that they suffered actual harm or damage as a result of the threat. This damage is typically economic, such as financial loss or loss of business opportunities. However, courts have debated whether other forms of harm, such as psychological distress, could also suffice.
Two-Party Intimidation
In two-party intimidation, the defendant threatens the plaintiff directly. For instance, a business partner might threaten to destroy shared assets or report fabricated misconduct unless the plaintiff agrees to unfavourable contract terms. The plaintiff, fearing unlawful repercussions, gives in to the demand and suffers economic harm. Here, the same parties are the source of the threat and the direct target.
Three-Party Intimidation
In three-party intimidation, the threat is directed at a third party but ultimately injures the plaintiff. For example, a competitor might threaten a key supplier with unlawful acts if that supplier continues doing business with the plaintiff. The intimidated supplier then cuts ties with the plaintiff to avoid the defendant’s retribution, causing the plaintiff economic harm. Although the defendant’s threat was not levelled directly at the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the end victim. The tort of intimidation recognizes this scenario to protect individuals or businesses from malicious schemes where an intermediary is coerced into compliance.
Both forms underscore how intimidation can operate in a chain, where the real victim is not always the immediate recipient of the threat. This distinction matters because the law allows the plaintiff to seek redress even if the pressure was funnelled through a third party, as long as the damage ultimately befalls the plaintiff and the defendant acted unlawfully.
A critical feature of the intimidation tort is the unlawful means requirement. The threatened act must itself be illegal or outside legal justification—for instance, physically harming someone, damaging property, breaching legal or statutory duties, or inciting criminal misconduct. Courts typically do not treat lawful threats—such as saying “I will sue you for breach of contract” if you indeed have a valid claim—as intimidation. Instead, they focus on threats that contravene established legal standards.
Examples of Unlawful Means
Threatening Physical Violence: Stating that you will injure the plaintiff or a family member if they do not sign a contract.
Threatening Criminal Acts: Coercing someone by claiming you’ll vandalize their property, hack their data, or engage in fraud.
Violation of Statutory Duties: Forcing compliance by withholding legally mandated services or refusing to follow safety regulations absent compliance.
This requirement ensures that typical commercial tough talk (e.g., “If you don’t lower your price, we’ll take our business elsewhere”) remains outside the scope of intimidation liability. The tort only arises when defendants leverage an illegitimate advantage or cross the boundary of legal conduct, thereby undermining free will and fair dealing.
Defendants in intimidation claims may assert several defences or justifications:
Lawful Threat: The defendant may argue their conduct was not genuinely illegal. For example, if they threatened to sue on a legitimate claim or exercise a valid contractual right, the threat might be viewed as lawful.
Lack of Causation: A defendant might dispute whether the plaintiff’s compliance resulted from the alleged threat, contending the plaintiff acted voluntarily for business or personal reasons unrelated to intimidation.
Unclean Hands: Some defendants argue that the plaintiff engaged in related misconduct, limiting or barring their claim. While not a standalone defence unique to intimidation, equity-based principles can affect the outcome if the plaintiff also employed coercion or illegal means.
These defences often hinge on factual disputes—whether the threatened act truly broke legal standards or whether the plaintiff truly felt coerced. Courts carefully evaluate the threat’s nature, how the plaintiff perceived it, and if the plaintiff had legitimate reasons to comply beyond the alleged intimidation.
Damages
When a plaintiff proves intimidation, the primary remedy is typically compensatory damages, designed to place the plaintiff back in the financial position they would have occupied but for the defendant’s unlawful coercion. Calculating damages can become complex, especially in commercial settings where lost profits or severed contracts ripple over time. If the defendant’s conduct was particularly egregious, courts may also consider aggravated or punitive damages to denounce malicious or fraudulent intimidation.
Injunctive Relief
In some situations, intimidation is ongoing—a defendant may persist in threatening conduct to force repeated compliance. Plaintiffs can seek injunctive relief to restrain the defendant from continuing or renewing such coercive threats, ensuring the environment returns to fair, lawful dealings. Courts scrutinize whether the plaintiff faces imminent and irreparable harm if no injunction is granted.
Declaratory Orders
On occasion, a court may issue a declaratory judgment clarifying that the defendant’s threatened action is unlawful and cannot be enforced. Such orders can restore business or personal relationships to normal footing by removing the fear factor that prompted the coerced conduct.
If you believe you have been coerced by unlawful threats or are accused of using intimidation, call on Grigoras Law. We proudly represent individuals, partnerships, and organizations across Ontario in all types of intimidation and economic tort disputes. Our firm is dedicated to offering:
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.
The tort of intimidation involves a defendant making an unlawful threat that coerces the plaintiff into acting against their interests, resulting in harm. This tort can be divided into two types: two-party and three-party intimidation. In two-party intimidation, the defendant’s threat directly coerces the plaintiff into an action or inaction that causes harm. Three-party intimidation involves the defendant making a threat against a third party, compelling that third party to act in a way that harms the plaintiff. For a successful claim, the threat must involve unlawful means, such as criminal acts, tortious acts, or breaches of statute. The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the threat was made with the intention to cause harm, that they submitted to the threat, and that this submission led to actual damage, typically economic, such as financial loss or loss of business opportunities. The courts assess the nature of the threat, its coerciveness, and the use of unlawful means to determine liability. Intimidation can take various forms, including physical threats, economic coercion, and psychological intimidation. Each of these forms must meet the legal criteria of being coercive and involving unlawful means. If these elements are proven, the defendant can be held liable for the plaintiff’s harm.
Economic coercion is a form of intimidation where threats impact the financial stability of the plaintiff. This can include threats to breach a contract, boycott a business, or engage in actions that would financially harm the plaintiff. Economic coercion must involve unlawful means to qualify as intimidation. For instance, threatening to breach a contract or engage in fraud constitutes unlawful means, whereas aggressive business tactics within legal bounds do not. Courts carefully scrutinize economic threats to differentiate between legitimate business competition and unlawful coercion. The key factors are the coerciveness of the threat and the illegality of the means used. The threat must be direct and include an ultimatum that forces the plaintiff or a third party to act against their will. Additionally, the defendant must have intended to cause harm, and the plaintiff must show that they submitted to the threat, resulting in actual damage. Economic coercion often involves complex interactions between business entities, making it essential to gather comprehensive evidence, such as communications, contracts, and financial records, to support the claim. Successful claims can lead to compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages, depending on the severity and impact of the threat. Legal counsel can help navigate these complexities and build a strong case.
There are several defences that a defendant can raise against a claim of intimidation. The primary defence is justification, which argues that the threat was lawful and justified under the circumstances. A threat is considered lawful if it involves actions the defendant is legally entitled to take. For example, a business owner threatening to terminate an employee for poor performance is exercising a legal right, provided the termination complies with employment laws. Another defence is the reasonable belief defence, where the defendant may argue that they reasonably believed their actions were lawful and justified. This requires demonstrating that the belief was honest and based on reasonable grounds. The burden of proof for the defence of justification lies with the defendant, meaning they must provide sufficient evidence to show that the threat was lawful and justified. Other defences include the lack of intention to cause harm, where the defendant can argue that there was no intent to harm the plaintiff, and the lack of causation, where the defendant can argue that their threat did not directly cause the plaintiff’s harm. Defences against intimidation claims can be complex and require detailed evidence and legal expertise to prove effectively.
If you win an intimidation case, several remedies are available to compensate for the harm suffered. The primary remedy is damages, which can include compensatory, general, aggravated, and punitive damages. Compensatory damages are awarded for direct financial losses and economic harm caused by the intimidation. General damages are for non-economic harm, such as emotional distress or loss of reputation. Aggravated damages are awarded when the defendant’s conduct is particularly egregious, involving malice or bad faith. Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant for their wrongful conduct and deter similar future actions. In addition to damages, injunctive relief may be granted to prevent ongoing or imminent harm caused by the defendant’s threats. Temporary injunctions provide immediate relief and prevent further harm while the case is being resolved, while permanent injunctions are granted as part of the final judgment to prohibit the defendant from making similar threats in the future. Injunctive relief is crucial in situations where ongoing threats pose a significant risk to the plaintiff’s interests. The combination of damages and injunctive relief aims to provide comprehensive redress for the harm suffered and prevent future occurrences.
Proving causation in an intimidation case involves demonstrating that the defendant’s threat was the direct cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. This requires establishing a clear link between the threat and the resulting damage. The plaintiff must show that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s threat. Causation can be direct, where the threat leads immediately to the harm, or indirect, where the threat sets off a chain of events resulting in harm. To prove causation, it is essential to gather comprehensive evidence, including communications, witness testimonies, and financial records, to demonstrate the impact of the threat. The plaintiff must also show that they submitted to the threat and that this submission led to actual damage, typically economic, such as financial loss or loss of business opportunities. In cases of psychological intimidation, evidence of emotional distress or mental harm may also be required. Legal counsel can help identify and collect the necessary evidence to establish causation and build a strong case. Proving causation is a crucial aspect of an intimidation claim, as it directly links the defendant’s actions to the plaintiff’s harm and determines the liability and potential remedies.
With a commitment to strategic clarity and a readiness to think beyond the conventional, Grigoras Law empowers clients to pursue meaningful solutions.
Clear Vision. Bold Paths.
GRIGORAS LAW - Civil Litigation and Business Lawyers Toronto © 2025 All Right Reserved
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service
