What is the test for the intentional tort of unlawful means?

The Ontario jurisprudence introduces a requirement that is compelling. Accepting the premise that the intentional tort of unlawful means is intended to fill a gap in the law, it follows that if the impugned conduct provides the claimant with a direct cause of action against the defendant, there is no need to consider whether the conduct is independently actionable by the third party. As far as I am aware, this qualification to the tort of unlawful means was first articulated in Correia v. Canac Kitchens, supra, which was released at about the time the present case went to trial. Lest this case be the subject of further comment or judicial scrutiny, I want to address this criterion in light of what was neither pled nor argued at trial or on appeal.