Torts - Conspiracy
Torts - Intimidation
Tran v. University of Western Ontario (Ont CA, 2015)
In this case the Court of Appeal commented as follows on the constituent elements of the torts of conspiracy and intimidation, and their pleading requirements:
 In Normart, at p. 104, this court held that a statement of claim alleging conspiracy should:
[D]escribe who the several parties are and their relationship with each other. It should allege the agreement between the defendants to conspire, and state precisely what the purpose or what were the objects of the alleged conspiracy, and it must then proceed to set forth, with clarity and precision, the overt acts which are alleged to have been done by each of the alleged conspirators in pursuance and in furtherance of the conspiracy; and lastly, it must allege the injury and damage occasioned to the plaintiff thereby. If read generously, some facts supporting these elements may be identified in the statement of claim. However, an agreement to conspire, its objects and the overt acts of each of the individual respondents have not all been pled.
 The tort of intimidation requires: a threat by the defendant to commit an unlawful act; an intention by the defendant that injury will result to the plaintiff; submission to the threat by the plaintiff; and actual damage suffered by the plaintiff: Kisin v. Netron, 2000 CarswellOnt 1149, at para. 23 (S.C.), see also Roehl v. Houlahan (1990), 1990 CanLII 6781 (ON CA), 75 O.R. (2d) 482, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused,  S.C.C.A. No. 518 and Central Canada Potash Co. v. Saskatchewan, 1978 CanLII 21 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 42. Again, read generously, some of these elements may be identified in the appellant’s statement of claim. However, the presence of a threat is nowhere to be found.