 Let's have a look at this case, which is an example of the application of the tort of interference with contractual relations. That tort is also commonly called the tort of inducing breach of contract. This decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, called Jujard and Kojiko Cable, involved a gentleman by the name of Mr. Jujard, who was a cable and fiber optic installer. He had worked for Kojiko Cable for quite a while in the Windsor area up until 1999. When he resigned and took employment in the US. When he returned to Canada in 2001, he came back to the Windsor area and he accepted a job with a company called MassTech. MassTech was a cable industry contractor and one of its main clients was Kojiko. When Kojiko found out that MassTech had hired Jujard, Kojiko told MassTech that they would not allow Jujard to work on any of its projects. Then MassTech told Mr. Jujard, we can't have you working on Kojiko projects. The only option is to get you to work on other projects farther away in London or Kitchener. Mr. Jujard could not, because of his family commitments, could not accept that alternative assignment. And that employment offer was revoked. Then several months later, MassTech hired Mr. Jujard again and assigned him again to a project involving Kojiko. And again, Kojiko told MassTech that they wouldn't allow Mr. Jujard to work on any of its equipment. And that caused MassTech to terminate Mr. Jujard's employment. Because of this situation, Mr. Jujard was unable to obtain any employment with any other Windsor cable industry contractor due to all the rumors that swirled arising from this incident with Kojiko. The legal issue that we'll focus on in this case has to do with whether or not Kojiko induced MassTech to breach its employment contract with Jujard. In other words, did Kojiko commit the tort of interference with contractual relations? Please note that the court also considered another legal issue, which was whether or not Kojiko committed the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations. We will focus only on the part of the judgment that discusses the tort of inducing breach of contract, also known as interference with contractual relations. The court set out the requirements for the tort of inducing breach of contract, which is also called again the tort of interference with contractual relations. So to prove that tort, the court said that the four elements had to be proven. First, Mr. Jujard had a valid and enforceable contract with MassTech. Second, Kojiko was aware of the existence of that contract. Third requirement was Kojiko intended to and did procure the breach of the contract. And lastly, the fourth requirement, as a result of the breach of contract, Mr. Jujard suffered damages. In applying those legal requirements to the facts of this case, the court with respect to the first requirement said that there's no dispute that Mr. Jujard was hired in May of 2001 and did have a valid and enforceable employment contract with MassTech. So that first requirement of having an actual contract is met. The second requirement, Kojiko had acknowledged that it was aware of the contract between MassTech and Jujard. So that satisfies the second requirement that Kojiko actually knew of the contract between MassTech and Jujard. So moving on to the third requirement. The third requirement is that Kojiko must have intended to cause the breach of contract between MassTech and Mr. Jujard. In coming to the conclusion that Kojiko did intend to cause the breach of contract, the court looked at the findings, the factual findings from the trial. So there's a whole list of six different facts that were found at trial, which the appeal court used to support the conclusion that there was an intention to cause a breach of contract. The last element is that Mr. Jujard must have suffered damages arising from the breach of contract. And the appeal court here accepted the trial court's conclusion that Mr. Jujard did suffer damages. Specifically he wasn't able to find a job in his field of expertise in the Windsor area and he had to accept other lower paying employment. Let's recap the legal requirements for the tort of interference with contractual relations. So the first requirement has to do with knowledge. The defendant had to actually know about the existence of a contract between the plaintiff and a third party. The second requirement has to do with intention. The defendant intended to cause the third party to breach the contract. The third requirement is cause. The defendant actually caused the third party to breach the contract. And the fourth requirement is loss. The plaintiff suffered a loss from the breach of contract. So this tort typically arises when one company is trying to lure away employees or customers of another company.