Appeal involving failed arm's length negotiations between mining companies over possible joint development of gold properties in the Hemlo area.
The respondent disclosed confidential geological information and its acquisition plans for an adjacent patented property during negotiations; the appellant then used that information to acquire the property for itself.
A majority held that the appellant breached a duty of confidence, and the Court upheld the constructive trust remedy requiring transfer of the property, subject to compensation for improvements.
The decision contains major reasons on the distinction between breach of confidence and fiduciary duty, and on the availability of constructive trust as a restitutionary remedy.
