violation of contract

Violation of Contract: Monetary Damages

Date: June 10, 2026

When a contract is breached, the primary question for the innocent party is what they can recover. In Ontario and BC, the answer is governed by the same common law principles: damages are designed to compensate, not to punish. The goal is to place the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed, no better and no worse. Understanding how courts measure that position, and what limits apply, is essential to assessing whether a contract claim is worth pursuing and what a realistic outcome looks like.

This article explains the main categories of damages for breach of contract in Ontario and BC, the remoteness rule that limits what can be recovered, the duty to mitigate that limits how much can be claimed, when courts depart from purely compensatory damages, and how courts approach damages in commercial contract disputes. For an overview of breach of contract claims more broadly, see our breach of contract practice page.

The governing principle
Damages for breach of contract are compensatory. Their purpose is to put the innocent party in the financial position they would have been in had the contract been performed, not to punish the breaching party for the breach. This principle applies in both Ontario and BC and governs how courts calculate and limit the award.

Two important limiting principles apply alongside this: the remoteness rule restricts recovery to losses within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting, and the duty to mitigate requires the innocent party to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses. A damages claim that does not account for both will not produce an accurate picture of what can actually be recovered.

Material breach vs minor breach: why it matters for your remedy

Not all breaches have the same legal consequences. Whether a breach is material or minor determines whether the innocent party can treat the contract as at an end and whether they are entitled to the full benefit of their bargain or only partial compensation.

A material breach goes to the root of the contract and deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit they were intended to receive. Where a breach is material, the innocent party can elect to treat the contract as terminated and sue for damages representing the full loss of the benefit of the bargain. They are also relieved of their own obligations to continue performing.

A minor or partial breach does not go to the root of the contract. The innocent party must continue to perform their own obligations and can claim damages only for the specific loss caused by the partial breach. Treating a minor breach as grounds for terminating the contract is itself a breach by the innocent party, which reverses the positions of the parties in subsequent litigation.

The distinction is frequently litigated in Ontario and BC commercial disputes and is not always obvious. Whether a breach is material depends on the nature and significance of the obligation that was breached, the proportion of the total contractual benefit that was lost, and the express or implied intentions of the parties about the importance of that obligation. Getting the assessment wrong has serious consequences.

The three primary categories of contract damages

Expectation damages

Expectation damages are the primary measure of recovery for breach of contract. They are designed to give the innocent party the benefit of their bargain: the financial position they would have been in had the contract been fully performed. This includes the profit or net value they would have received under the contract, minus any costs they saved by not having to perform their own obligations after the breach.

A party who contracted to receive services worth $100,000 and paid $60,000 in advance has a claim for the $40,000 balance plus any losses flowing from not receiving the services, subject to remoteness and mitigation. A party who contracted to provide services for $100,000 and incurred $70,000 in costs before the other side repudiated has a claim for its lost profit of $30,000 plus the costs already incurred.

Reliance damages

Reliance damages aim to restore the innocent party to the position they were in before they entered the contract, by recovering wasted expenditure incurred in reliance on the contract being performed. They are an alternative to expectation damages and are most useful where the innocent party cannot prove what profit they would have made or where the contract was entered into at a loss and expectation damages would produce a smaller recovery than reliance damages.

Where a party spent $50,000 preparing to perform a contract that the other side then repudiated, reliance damages recover those wasted preparation costs. The breaching party can defeat a reliance damages claim by proving the contract would have been a loss-making venture in any event, since damages cannot put the claimant in a better position than proper performance would have.

Restitution damages

Restitution damages address the situation where the innocent party has conferred a benefit on the breaching party and the breaching party would be unjustly enriched if they were allowed to retain it. They focus on the benefit received by the defendant rather than the loss suffered by the claimant. Restitution is most commonly sought where a contract was partly performed, where services were rendered under a contract that was subsequently found to be unenforceable, or where the breach itself generated a profit for the breaching party that exceeds the innocent party's provable loss.

The remoteness rule: what losses are recoverable

Not every loss flowing from a breach of contract is recoverable. The remoteness rule, established in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 and consistently applied in Ontario and BC, limits recovery to losses that were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was formed.

Hadley v. Baxendale and the two-limb remoteness test

The rule in Hadley v. Baxendale establishes two categories of recoverable loss. The first limb covers losses that arise naturally in the ordinary course of events from the breach: losses that any reasonable person would have foreseen as a likely consequence of that type of breach in that type of contract. These are recoverable without any special knowledge on the defendant's part.

The second limb covers losses that arise from special circumstances that were communicated to or known by the defendant at the time of contracting. Where a party with special circumstances known to the other side suffers an unusually large loss from a breach, the second limb can extend recovery to those losses. Where special circumstances were not communicated, those unusual losses are too remote and cannot be recovered.

The practical implication for commercial contracts is significant. A party who enters a contract knowing that breach will cause unusual or disproportionate losses to the other side should either price that risk into the contract or use a limitation of liability clause to cap exposure. A party who fails to disclose special circumstances that would dramatically increase their loss claim may find much of that loss is unrecoverable.

The remoteness rule operates at the time of contracting, not at the time of breach. What matters is what was in the reasonable contemplation of both parties when they agreed to the contract, based on the information they had at that point. Losses that were unforeseeable at contracting but became foreseeable before the breach are generally not within the first limb and require the second limb to be recoverable.

The duty to mitigate

An innocent party who suffers a breach of contract is under a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses. This is the duty to mitigate. It applies in both Ontario and BC and is a consistent source of reduction in damages awards where claimants have not taken obvious steps to reduce their loss after the breach.

The duty does not require the innocent party to take extraordinary steps, accept unreasonable substitute arrangements, or expose themselves to significant risk or expense in an attempt to reduce their loss. It requires reasonable steps in the circumstances. Whether particular steps were reasonable is assessed objectively: what would a reasonable person in the claimant's position have done to minimize the loss?

Where a claimant fails to mitigate, their damages are reduced by the amount they could reasonably have recovered through mitigation. This reduction is applied even where the breach was deliberate or the breaching party's conduct was particularly objectionable. The duty to mitigate is not a punishment for the innocent party: it is a structural feature of the damages assessment that reflects the compensatory principle.

Suffered a breach of contract in Ontario or BC and trying to understand what you can actually recover?

Expectation damages, remoteness, mitigation, and limitation clauses all affect what a contract claim is actually worth. A realistic assessment of damages before commencing proceedings saves time, cost, and disappointment. Get legal advice on your specific situation now.

Call: 1-800-771-7882 Get an Honest Assessment of Your Contract Claim

Additional heads of damage

Consequential and special damages Losses beyond the direct financial loss from the breach, recoverable under the second limb of Hadley v. Baxendale where they were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting. Includes lost profits from downstream contracts, reputational damage in appropriate cases, and costs incurred dealing with the consequences of the breach.
Liquidated damages clauses Where the contract specifies a predetermined sum payable on breach, courts will enforce it as liquidated damages provided it represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss rather than a penalty. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that penalty clauses are enforceable in commercial contracts between sophisticated parties in some circumstances, though the analysis is contextual.
Aggravated damages Available in limited circumstances where the manner of the breach caused additional harm beyond the financial loss, such as mental distress caused by the breach of a contract whose object was to provide peace of mind or security. More commonly available in employment and consumer contracts than in pure commercial disputes.
Punitive damages Rarely awarded in contract cases. Require independently actionable conduct that is malicious, oppressive, or high-handed, going beyond the breach itself. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18 that punitive damages in contract require conduct amounting to an independent actionable wrong. A deliberate breach, even a calculated one, does not alone justify punitive damages.
Pre-judgment interest Courts in Ontario and BC regularly award pre-judgment interest on damages from the date of the breach or the date proceedings were commenced. The applicable rate and period depend on the governing legislation and the nature of the claim. For commercial disputes, pre-judgment interest can be a significant component of the total recovery on large or long-running claims.
Costs The successful party in a breach of contract action is generally entitled to partial indemnity costs from the unsuccessful party. Full indemnity costs are available in exceptional cases or where a contractual provision requires it. Costs are awarded by the court at the conclusion of the proceeding and are assessed separately from the substantive damages award.

Limitation clauses and their effect on recovery

Commercial contracts frequently contain limitation of liability clauses that cap the damages recoverable for breach, exclude certain categories of loss entirely, or restrict recovery to direct damages while excluding consequential or indirect losses. These clauses are generally enforceable in Ontario and BC between sophisticated commercial parties, subject to principles of contractual interpretation and, where applicable, the contra proferentem rule.

The interaction between a limitation clause and a damages claim is one of the most important aspects of any breach of contract analysis. A claimant who fails to account for a valid limitation clause may significantly overstate their realistic recovery. A defendant facing a large damages claim who overlooks a limitation clause in their contract may significantly underestimate their exposure to the full claim. See our guide to contra proferentem and ambiguous contract language for how courts interpret unclear limitation clauses.

Dealing with a breach of contract dispute in Ontario or BC and trying to understand what you can recover?

The realistic value of a contract claim depends on expectation damages, remoteness, mitigation, limitation clauses, and the cost of enforcement. Get a clear assessment before deciding how to proceed.

Understand What Your Contract Claim Is Worth Or call us: 1-800-771-7882

Practical takeaways

Contract damages are compensatory. Their purpose is to put the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed, not to punish the breaching party. This principle applies in both Ontario and BC.
Expectation damages give the innocent party the benefit of their bargain. Reliance damages recover wasted expenditure. Restitution damages recover benefits conferred on the breaching party. The appropriate measure depends on the specific facts and what can be proved.
The remoteness rule limits recovery to losses within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting under the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale. Unusual losses caused by special circumstances not disclosed at contracting may be unrecoverable.
The duty to mitigate requires the innocent party to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses following a breach. Failure to mitigate reduces the damages award by the amount that could reasonably have been avoided.
Limitation of liability clauses in commercial contracts can significantly cap or restrict recovery. Assessing the enforceability and scope of any limitation clause is an essential step in evaluating a breach of contract claim.
Punitive damages for breach of contract are rarely awarded in Ontario or BC. They require independently actionable conduct going beyond the breach itself, not merely a deliberate or calculated breach.

Frequently asked questions

What damages can you recover for breach of contract in Ontario and BC?

The primary remedy is compensatory damages designed to place the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. The main categories are expectation damages, reliance damages, and restitution damages. Consequential damages are also available where the loss was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at contracting under the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale.

What is the duty to mitigate in a contract dispute?

The innocent party in a contract dispute must take reasonable steps to minimize their losses following a breach. Courts in Ontario and BC will not award damages for losses that could reasonably have been avoided. Failure to mitigate reduces the damages award by the amount that reasonable mitigation steps would have recovered. The duty requires reasonable steps only, not heroic efforts.

What are expectation damages in contract law?

Expectation damages give the innocent party the benefit of their bargain by placing them in the financial position they would have been in had the contract been fully performed. This includes the profit or value they would have received, minus costs saved by not having to perform after the breach. They are the primary measure of recovery for breach of contract in Ontario and BC.

What is the difference between a material breach and a minor breach of contract?

A material breach goes to the root of the contract and deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit they were intended to receive. It entitles the innocent party to treat the contract as terminated and claim damages for the full loss of the benefit of the bargain. A minor breach does not justify termination: the innocent party must continue to perform and can claim only for the specific loss caused by the partial breach.

Are punitive damages available for breach of contract in Ontario and BC?

Rarely. Punitive damages require independently actionable conduct that is malicious, oppressive, or high-handed, going beyond the breach itself. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18 that a deliberate breach, even a calculated one, does not alone justify punitive damages in contract. They are exceptional and reserved for conduct that offends the court's sense of decency.

Dealing with a breach of contract in Ontario or BC and trying to understand what you can recover? Tell us what's happening.

Whether you are assessing the value of a breach of contract claim, responding to a claim that has been brought against you, or trying to understand how a limitation clause affects your exposure, Achkar Law advises businesses and individuals across Ontario and British Columbia on breach of contract claims. We will give you an honest assessment of what your claim is realistically worth and the most effective approach to pursuing or defending it.

Call us at 1-800-771-7882 or fill out the form below and we will be in touch.