In the case of Debt Aid Consulting Inc. v Financial Rescue LLC dated June 8, 2023, there was a dispute between Plaintiff Debt Aid Consulting Inc. and Defendant Financial Rescue LLC, both debt relief marketing companies operating in Ontario. The principals of the two companies had a history of personal animosity. In its Amended Statement of Claim, plaintiff sought a declaration that Financial Rescue could not conduct business in Canada, alleging that the Defendant intentionally misled Canadian consumers by advertising its services despite not having a license to do so. Debt Aid also claimed damages of $100,000 for lost business and revenue due to the Defendant's conduct and tortious interference with its business. Defendant disputed the claims, asserting that it was a legitimate competitor in the Canadian market and that its operations did not amount to tortious interference. The Defendant argued that Debt Aid was using the court to gain a competitive business advantage it could not obtain in the regular commercial marketplace. Financial Rescue sought the dismissal of the action with costs on a substantial indemnity basis. The court emphasized that competition in the marketplace might lead to increased advertising costs for competitors, but this did not necessarily constitute illegal conduct. The Plaintiff failed to establish the essential elements of the tort of intentional interference with economic relations. Thus, their case was dismissed. The parties were encouraged to agree on appropriate costs, and if they couldn't agree, they were given an opportunity to make brief written submissions on costs.