## Facts

- Daishowa Inc., a forest-products company, obtained Alberta logging rights in an area traditionally used and occupied by the Lubicon Cree, whose land claims remained unresolved.
- Friends of the Lubicon, an unincorporated advocacy group, urged Daishowa to refrain from logging in the disputed area until the land claims were settled.
- When Daishowa did not provide the requested commitment, the group organized a consumer boycott aimed at pressuring Daishowa to change its conduct.
- The group contacted Daishowa’s customers, requesting that they stop buying Daishowa products and warning that the customer could itself become a boycott target if it refused.
- If a customer refused, the group conducted informational picketing at the customer’s retail locations to persuade members of the public and increase pressure on Daishowa through its customers.
- Daishowa sued and sought damages and a permanent injunction, alleging multiple economic and speech-related torts, including interference with economic/contractual relations, intimidation, conspiracy, misrepresentation, defamation, injurious falsehood, nuisance, and “unlawful means” associated with secondary picketing.
- After earlier interlocutory proceedings (including an appellate injunction restraining certain conduct), the matter came before the Ontario Court (General Division) on a full record for a permanent injunction and related relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ boycott, communications with customers, and secondary informational picketing constituted any of the pleaded torts, including intentional interference with economic/contractual relations by unlawful means, intimidation, conspiracy, defamation, misrepresentation, nuisance, or injurious falsehood.
2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants’ ongoing advocacy activities.

## Decision

- The court dismissed Daishowa’s application for a permanent injunction and associated relief.
- The court held the boycott, customer communications, and informational secondary picketing were lawful on the evidence and did not establish the alleged torts.
- The court declined to treat economic pressure and resulting commercial harm, without independently unlawful conduct, as sufficient to found liability or justify a permanent injunction.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional interference with economic or contractual relations requires proof of “unlawful means”; lawful persuasion, even if intended to cause economic loss, does not satisfy that element.
- The tort of intimidation requires a threat to commit an unlawful act; threats of lawful boycott activity or lawful informational picketing do not qualify.
- Conspiracy liability requires unlawful means (or a predominant purpose to injure for its own sake); coordinated lawful advocacy to advance a political or social objective is insufficient.
- In public-controversy advocacy, strong or emotive rhetoric does not by itself establish defamation or actionable misrepresentation; liability generally requires materially false factual assertions meeting the relevant standards.
- Peaceful informational picketing at third-party premises is not actionable absent additional wrongful features (e.g., obstruction, harassment, or other conduct satisfying an independent tort or statutory wrong).
- Permanent injunctive relief restraining advocacy is not granted where the challenged conduct is lawful and where broad restraints would suppress public discussion on matters of public concern.

## Conclusion

The court refused to convert a peaceful political boycott and related secondary informational picketing into tort liability, holding that Daishowa failed to prove “unlawful means” or other actionable wrongdoing and was not entitled to a permanent injunction restricting the defendants’ advocacy.


Daishowa Inc. v. Friends of the Lubicon, 39 O.R. 3d 620 (Ont. Gen. Div. 1998)