Damages - Disgorgement. Interhealth Canada Limited v. O’Keefe
In Interhealth Canada Limited v. O’Keefe (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers the causal requirements of a disgorgement damage claim:
 While, in my view, in all the circumstances, Mr. O’Keefe’s pre-resignation involvement with HIH did not breach his fiduciary duty, even if it did, the appellant has not satisfied me of the requisite causal link between the breach and the gain which the appellant seeks disgorgement of.. Extreme Venture Partners Fund I LP v. Varma
 In the event the court found that Mr. O’Keefe did not divert the Cromwell Opportunity to CHNI, the appellant sought disgorgement of the profits earned by Mr. O’Keefe from the HIH Opportunity as a result of the breaches of his fiduciary duty to the appellant. The appellant’s submission properly acknowledged that the fiduciary’s breach must be the cause-in-fact of the wrongdoer’s gain in respect of which disgorgement is sought: see Southwind v. Canada, 2021 SCC 28, 459 D.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 70. Thus, the appellant must establish both that Mr. O’Keefe’s involvement with HIH prior to his resignation breached his fiduciary duty to the appellant, and that it was the cause-in-fact of CHNI securing the HIH Opportunity.
In Extreme Venture Partners Fund I LP v. Varma (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal considered disgorgement damages:
 The leading case on disgorgement of profits is Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24,  2 S.C.R. 177, where the Supreme Court stated:
74. This Court has repeatedly stated that "[e]quitable remedies are always subject to the discretion of the court". (internal citations omitted) In Neil, the Court stated emphatically: "It is one thing to demonstrate a breach of loyalty. It is quite another to arrive at an appropriate remedy" (para. 36).. Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock
75. Monarch seeks "disgorgement" of profit earned by Strother and Davis. Such a remedy may be directed to either or both of two equitable purposes. Firstly, is a prophylactic purpose, aptly described as appropriating for the benefit of the person to whom the fiduciary duty is owed any benefit or gain obtained or received by the fiduciary in circumstances where there existed a conflict of personal interest and fiduciary duty or a significant possibility of such conflict: the objective is to preclude the fiduciary from being swayed by considerations of personal interest.
(Chan v. Zacharia (1984), 154 C.L.R. 178, per Deane J., at p. 198)
76. The second potential purpose is restitutionary, i.e. to restore to the beneficiary profit which properly belongs to the beneficiary, but which has been wrongly appropriated by the fiduciary in breach of its duty. …
77. The concept of the prophylactic purpose is well summarized in the Davis factum as follows:
[W]here a conflict or significant possibility of conflict existed between the fiduciary's duty and his or her personal interest in the pursuit or receipt of such profits . . . equity requires disgorgement of any profits received even where the beneficiary has suffered no loss because of the need to deter fiduciary faithlessness and preserve the integrity of the fiduciary relationship. [Emphasis omitted; para. 152.]Where, as here, disgorgement is imposed to serve a prophylactic purpose, the relevant causation is the breach of a fiduciary duty and the defendant's gain (not the plaintiff's loss). Denying Strother profit generated by the financial interest that constituted his conflict teaches faithless fiduciaries that conflicts of interest do not pay. The prophylactic purpose thereby advances the policy of equity, even at the expense of a windfall to the wronged beneficiary.
In Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock (SCC, 2020) the Supreme Court of Canada clarifies disgorgement as a remedy of limited application (not as an independent cause of action) that it equates with "wrongdoing without proof of damage (for example, breach of fiduciary duty)" [para 32]:
 Recognizing that disgorgement is simply a remedy for certain forms of wrongful conduct places the central issue in this case in context. By pleading disgorgement as an independent cause of action, the plaintiffs seek to establish an entirely new category of wrongful conduct — one that is akin to negligence but does not require proof of damage. Supporters of this type of claim assert that “there is simply no reason in principle why the rules for compensatory damages need to be identical to the rules for disgorgement” (McCamus, at p. 359) and that, given that the purpose of granting disgorgement is to deter wrongful conduct rather than to provide compensation, there is no reason to require proof of damage (p. 354).
 I acknowledge that disgorgement is available for some forms of wrongdoing without proof of damage (for example, breach of fiduciary duty). But it is a far leap to find that disgorgement without proof of damage is available as a general proposition in response to a defendant’s negligent conduct. Determining the appropriate remedy for negligence, where liability for negligence has not already been established, is futile and even nonsensical since doing so allows “the remedy tail [to] wag the liability dog” (Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73  3 S.C.R. 511, at para. 55). This observation applies with no less force to the plaintiff who seeks disgorgement, since the availability of gain-based relief lies in “aligning the remedy with the injustice it corrects” (E. J. Weinrib, “Restitutionary Damages as Corrective Justice” (2000), 1 Theor. Inq. L. 1, at p. 23 (emphasis added)).
 It is therefore important to consider what it is that makes a defendant’s negligent conduct wrongful. As this Court has maintained, “[a] defendant in an action in negligence is not a wrongdoer at large: he is a wrongdoer only in respect of the damage which he actually causes to the plaintiff” (Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32,  2 S.C.R. 181, at para. 16). There is no right to be free from the prospect of damage; there is only a right not to suffer damage that results from exposure to unreasonable risk (E. J. Weinrib, The Idea of Private Law (rev. ed. 2012), at pp. 153 and 157‑58; R. Stevens, Torts and Rights (2007), at pp. 44‑45 and 99). In other words, negligence “in the air” — the mere creation of risk — is not wrongful conduct. Granting disgorgement for negligence without proof of damage would result in a remedy “arising out of legal nothingness” (Weber, at p. 424). It would be a radical and uncharted development, “[giving] birth to a new tort over night” (Barton, Hines and Therien, at p. 147).
 The difficulty is not just normative, although it is at least that. The practical difficulty associated with recognizing an action in negligence without proof of damage becomes apparent in considering how such a claim would operate. As the Court of Appeal recognized, a claim for disgorgement available to any plaintiff placed within the ambit of risk generated by the defendant would entitle any one plaintiff to the full gain realized by the defendant. No answer is given as to why any particular plaintiff is entitled to recover the whole of the defendant’s gain. Yet, corrective justice, the basis for recovery in tort, demands just that: an explanation as to why the plaintiff is the party entitled to a remedy (Clements, at para. 7; Weinrib (2000), at pp. 1‑7). Tort law does not treat plaintiffs “merely as a convenient conduit of social consequences” but rather as “someone to whom damages are owed to correct the wrong suffered” (Weinrib (2000), at p. 6). A cause of action that promotes a race to recover by awarding a windfall to the first plaintiff who arrives at the courthouse steps undermines this foundational principle of tort law.
 This is not the type of incremental change that falls within the remit of courts applying the common law (Salituro, at p. 670). It follows that the novel cause of action proposed by the plaintiffs has no reasonable chance of succeeding at trial.