Legal Solutions
The failure to perform a contractual obligation without lawful excuse, giving rise to a legal claim for resulting losses or remedies such as damages, specific performance, or injunctive relief.
Grigoras Law acts for businesses and individuals across Ontario in breach of contract disputes, from non-payment and delivery failures to wrongful termination, repudiation, and broken earn-out or supply commitments. We pursue expectation and reliance damages, specific performance, and practical settlements that protect commercial relationships and cash flow.
What We Do
Compensation placing you in the position you would have been in had the contract been performed — including lost profits, wasted expenditure, and consequential losses within the parties' reasonable contemplation.
Read moreEquitable orders compelling actual performance where monetary damages are inadequate — particularly for unique goods, real estate, and shares — and injunctions restraining breach of non-compete or confidentiality covenants.
Read moreAssessing whether breach is fundamental or minor, whether anticipatory repudiation has occurred, and whether substantial performance limits rather than eliminates recovery — the classification determines what rights arise.
Read moreApplying the compensation principle, mitigation duty, remoteness rules under Hadley v. Baxendale, and certainty of proof requirements to determine the recoverable quantum of loss.
Read moreRestitutionary relief stripping the defendant of wrongful gain — including accounts of profits and constructive trusts — plus punitive damages where breach involves malicious, oppressive, or bad faith conduct.
Read moreConstruction and service contract disputes, sale of goods and supply agreements, real estate transaction failures, and wrongful dismissal and employment contract claims.
Read moreNo enforceable contract, frustration and impossibility, substantial performance, waiver and estoppel, accord and satisfaction, failure to mitigate, and limitation period defences under the Limitations Act, 2002.
Read moreWhat constitutes a breach, the four elements of the claim, contract formation requirements, and the expectation interest principle that governs every remedy in Canadian contract law.
Read moreYour Legal Team
Counsel — Civil & Appellate Litigation
Counsel — Civil & Appellate Litigation
Representative Work
Defended a contractor's lien claim and advanced counterclaims for deficient and negligent workmanship and breaches of Ontario's Consumer Protection Act, including rescission and restitutionary relief.
Counsel to individuals asserting the validity of a rent-to-own arrangement. Relied on oral and written assurances and substantial improvements to the property to ground proprietary estoppel and specific performance–style remedies.
Acted for a corporate client seeking expectation damages and lost opportunities arising from a counterparty's failure to perform key licensing obligations and deliverables.
Pursued specific performance against a corporate defendant in relation to a failed contract for usage rights over multiple condominium properties in Mexico, with alternative claims for consequential loss.
Sought a proportionate interest in the proceeds of sale of a residence jointly occupied with a former partner, based on substantial improvement work that enhanced the property's value.
Acted for a purchaser seeking return of significant deposits after non-conforming performance under a series of prefab building agreements, advancing contractual, statutory, and restitutionary claims.
Counsel to a client pursuing indemnity for a high-value vehicle stolen during U.S. transit and enforcing contractual obligations to provide prerequisite release documentation for additional vehicles held at a German port.
Represented clients sued on a dog adoption agreement, seeking to set aside or read down provisions for ambiguity, conflicting terms, unreasonable conditions, and unenforceable penalty clauses.
Insights & Analysis
Contract Basics & Formation
Breach, Remedies & Strategy
Consumer, Services & Banking
Advanced Doctrines & Choice of Law
The law of contract remedies is built on a single foundational objective: to place the innocent party, so far as money can do it, in the same position they would have occupied had the agreement been fulfilled. This "expectation interest" principle — articulated in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), 9 Exch. 341 and consistently applied by Canadian courts — means that contract law is not simply about punishing broken promises. It is a framework through which parties can plan their affairs with confidence that their planning will be effective and their legitimate expectations protected.
A breach of contract arises when one party fails to perform, or expresses an intention not to perform, a binding contractual obligation without lawful excuse. The remedies available depend on the nature and severity of the breach, the losses caused, and whether the parties' own conduct affected the outcome.
A breach of contract occurs when a party, without lawful excuse, either fails to perform an obligation under the contract or performs it defectively. The breach may involve non-performance, late performance, or performance that fails to meet the contractual standard. Not every departure from contractual terms constitutes a breach that justifies termination or triggers all available remedies — the severity of the breach determines what rights arise.
Under Ontario law, breach claims may be brought in the Superior Court of Justice for contracts governed by the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, or in Small Claims Court for disputes under $35,000. The governing principles of formation, performance, and remedy are rooted in the common law and reflected in legislation such as the Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.1, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A.
To establish a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must prove four elements. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff throughout:
A binding agreement between the parties — offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and certainty of essential terms.
A specific obligation owed by the defendant to the plaintiff under the terms of that contract — express or reasonably implied.
The defendant failed to perform that obligation, performed it defectively, or repudiated the contract before the time for performance arrived.
Loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff as a consequence of the breach, proven with reasonable certainty — not mere speculation.
Where these elements are established, the defendant may assert defences or argue that damages should be reduced or denied based on principles such as mitigation, remoteness, or contributory fault.
Before a breach can occur, there must be a valid and enforceable contract. Formation requires more than a mere exchange of promises — the parties must have demonstrated genuine mutual assent through offer and acceptance, provided consideration moving from each side, intended to create legal relations, and reached sufficient certainty on essential terms. Contracts may be express or implied, oral or written. While certain contracts must be evidenced in writing under statute (such as contracts for the sale of land or guarantees), most commercial agreements do not require formal documentation to be enforceable.
Issues of formation often arise as defences in breach disputes. A defendant may argue that no contract was formed due to lack of agreement on essential terms, absence of consideration, or failure to satisfy statutory formalities. These arguments challenge the very foundation of the claim and, if successful, eliminate any contractual obligation to perform.
Not all breaches are created equal. The law distinguishes between types of breach based on their severity and the rights they confer upon the innocent party. Understanding these distinctions is essential to determining whether the contract can be terminated and what remedies are available.
| Type of Breach | What It Involves | Rights of Innocent Party |
|---|---|---|
| Fundamental Breach (Repudiatory) | Strikes at the core of the contract — deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit intended under the agreement | Right to terminate the contract and claim damages for the loss of the entire bargain |
| Minor Breach (Breach of Warranty) | A less serious failure that does not undermine the contract's essential purpose | Claim damages only — must continue performing their own obligations; cannot terminate |
| Anticipatory Repudiation | Party declares (by words or conduct) before performance is due that it will not perform | Accept repudiation and sue immediately, OR affirm the contract and await the time for performance |
| Substantial Performance | Essential obligations fulfilled but with minor defects or omissions — not a full breach | Cannot terminate; may claim a reduction in price or damages limited to the cost of remedying defects |
A fundamental breach (also called a repudiatory breach or breach of condition) strikes at the core of the contract, depriving the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit intended under the agreement. The test, established in Hongkong Fir Shipping Co. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., [1962] 2 Q.B. 26 (C.A.), asks whether the breach deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties that they should obtain. Such breaches entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract and claim damages for the loss of the entire bargain.
By contrast, a minor breach (or breach of warranty) involves a less serious failure that does not undermine the contract's essential purpose. The innocent party may claim damages but cannot terminate. They must continue performing their own obligations while seeking compensation for the loss caused by the breach. Some terms are classified as conditions at the outset, meaning any breach — however minor in consequence — entitles the innocent party to terminate. Others are innominate terms, where the right to terminate depends on the seriousness of the actual consequences of the breach.
An anticipatory breach or repudiation occurs when a party, through words or conduct, demonstrates an intention not to be bound by the contract before performance is due. The test is whether a reasonable person would conclude that the party no longer intends to perform its obligations when the time comes.
When anticipatory repudiation is established, the innocent party faces a choice: accept the repudiation, treat the contract as terminated, and sue immediately for damages — or affirm the contract and insist that it remains in force pending the time for performance.
The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a party who accepts repudiation is not required to hold themselves available for performance and may treat the contract as at an end. The doctrine prevents opportunism while protecting the legitimate expectations of parties who choose to stand by their agreement despite a declared refusal to perform. The case also addressed the intersection of anticipatory repudiation with the duty to mitigate — a party who affirms the contract does not thereby waive the obligation to limit their losses.
The doctrine of substantial performance provides that where a party has performed the essential obligations of a contract, despite minor defects or omissions, they may recover the contract price subject to a reduction for the cost of remedying the defects. This doctrine prevents unjust enrichment where the innocent party has received most of the benefit intended under the agreement, and is particularly important in construction contracts where perfect performance is rarely achievable.
The court held that where there is substantial performance with only minor deviations, the performing party may recover the contract price less the cost of remedying defects. This principle remains central to Canadian contract law and prevents the doctrine of strict compliance from being deployed as a windfall — allowing the innocent party to retain the benefit of the other's work without payment simply because minor deficiencies exist.
Canadian law provides several remedies, both at common law and in equity, for breach of contract. The choice of remedy depends on the nature of the breach, the type of loss suffered, and what is necessary to adequately compensate the innocent party or restore the position they would have been in had the contract been performed.
The primary remedy — places the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. Includes lost profits and consequential losses within the parties' reasonable contemplation.
Compensates expenses incurred in reliance on the contract — available where expectation losses are too speculative to prove or where the plaintiff would have been no better off had the contract been performed.
Equitable remedies where monetary damages are inadequate — specific performance compels performance; injunctions restrain breach of negative covenants such as non-competition or confidentiality clauses.
Restitutionary or account of profits awards strip the defendant of wrongful gain. Punitive damages (rare) punish malicious, oppressive, or high-handed conduct that markedly departs from ordinary standards of decency.
The primary remedy is monetary damages designed to protect the plaintiff's expectation interest — placing the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed. Expectation damages typically include the value of the promised performance, any lost profits that would have been earned, and consequential losses that flow naturally from the breach. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving these losses with reasonable certainty.
Reliance damages protect the plaintiff's reliance interest by compensating for expenses incurred in reliance on the contract. This measure is appropriate where expectation losses are too speculative to prove or where the plaintiff's position would have been no better had the contract been performed.
The court awarded reliance damages where the plaintiff could not prove the profit it would have made from the contract. Reliance damages cover expenditures made in reasonable anticipation of performance — they protect the plaintiff against being left worse off than before the contract was made, even where the full expectation interest cannot be established with sufficient certainty.
While damages are the usual remedy, equity intervenes where monetary compensation is inadequate. Specific performance compels the breaching party to perform exactly as promised and is most often granted for contracts involving unique goods, real estate, or shares where the subject matter has no true substitute. Following Semelhago v. Paramadevan, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415, courts have emphasized that specific performance is discretionary and will only be granted where damages are inadequate to do justice — the presumption that all land is unique no longer applies automatically.
Injunctions restrain breach of negative covenants — non-competition, non-solicitation, or confidentiality clauses — where ongoing obligations or proprietary interests are at stake. Interlocutory injunctions may be granted urgently under Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure where there is a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favours the order.
In limited cases, Canadian courts may award restitutionary or gain-based relief, focusing on the defendant's unjust gain rather than the plaintiff's loss. These awards serve an important function in deterring opportunistic breaches and preventing enrichment through wrongdoing — particularly where the breach involves wrongful use of property, confidential information, or other assets of particular value to the defendant.
The Supreme Court imposed a constructive trust over mining property acquired through misuse of confidential information, demonstrating the flexibility of equitable remedies in addressing unjust enrichment arising from breach. Gain-based recovery allows the plaintiff to claim an account of profits or, in appropriate circumstances, a proprietary remedy over assets obtained through the wrongful conduct — regardless of whether those assets exceed the plaintiff's own measurable loss.
Punitive damages are rare in contract law but may be awarded where the breach involves conduct that is malicious, oppressive, or high-handed — behaviour that departs markedly from ordinary standards of decency. Their purpose is to punish and deter, not to compensate.
The Supreme Court confirmed that punitive damages may be appropriate where a breach is accompanied by bad faith or deceitful conduct, particularly in contracts of utmost good faith such as insurance agreements. The Court emphasized that such damages must be proportionate and rationally connected to the purposes of retribution, deterrence, and denunciation. An insurer's sustained and unsubstantiated refusal to honour a valid claim — combined with conduct designed to force the insured into an unjust settlement — warranted exceptional punitive relief.
Calculating damages for breach of contract involves applying principles developed over centuries of commercial practice and judicial interpretation. The goal is to provide fair and predictable compensation while preventing windfall gains and discouraging wasteful litigation.
| Principle | What It Requires | Effect on Recovery |
|---|---|---|
| Compensation | Place the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed — no more, no less | Sets the ceiling: plaintiff cannot recover more than their actual loss from the breach |
| Mitigation | Plaintiff must take reasonable steps to minimize their loss after breach | Reduces recovery for losses that could have been avoided through reasonable steps |
| Remoteness / Foreseeability | Losses must have been reasonably contemplated by both parties at the time of contracting as a probable result of breach | Filters out unusual or disproportionate losses the defendant could not have anticipated |
| Certainty of Proof | Plaintiff must prove losses with reasonable certainty — speculation does not suffice | May limit recovery where losses are too uncertain to quantify, even if their existence is established |
The foundational principle, stated by Parke B. in Robinson v. Harman (1848), 1 Exch. 850, is that damages should, as far as money can do it, place the plaintiff in the same situation as if the contract had been performed. This requires identifying what the plaintiff would have received had there been no breach and awarding the difference between that and their actual position. The plaintiff must prove their loss with reasonable certainty — speculation or conjecture will not suffice.
The injured party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss once a breach occurs. They cannot recover damages for losses that could have been avoided through reasonable efforts or alternative arrangements. What constitutes reasonable mitigation depends on the circumstances — the plaintiff is not required to take extraordinary measures, incur significant expense, or act in a way that undermines their dignity or commercial reputation. They must, however, take steps that a reasonable person in their position would take.
In employment contexts, a dismissed employee must seek comparable alternative employment. In sale of goods cases, a buyer who does not receive contracted goods must attempt to purchase substitute goods in the market if available. Ontario's Sale of Goods Act reflects this approach in its provisions governing buyer and seller remedies.
Not all losses caused by breach are recoverable. Damages are limited to those that were reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time of contracting as a probable result of breach — the principle established in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), 9 Exch. 341, 156 E.R. 145.
Losses arising naturally from the breach according to the usual course of things — what any party in this type of transaction would foresee as a probable result of this type of failure.
Losses that may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting — based on special circumstances communicated to the defendant before or at the time of contracting.
Lost profits are recoverable as expectation damages where they can be proven with reasonable certainty and were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. The plaintiff must establish not only that profits would have been made, but their amount — net of expenses that would have been incurred in earning them. Opportunity costs, the value of alternative contracts the plaintiff could have made but for the breach, may also be recoverable.
The Supreme Court awarded lost profits on the basis that, had the plaintiff not made the contract with the defendant, it would have made an equally profitable contract with another party. This confirms that opportunity cost is a cognizable head of expectation damages — the innocent party need not prove the precise alternative contract, but must demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that profitable work would have been available and taken up in the absence of the breached contract.
Breach of contract disputes arise across many industries and contexts. While each case depends on its particular facts and the terms of the agreement, certain patterns recur frequently in commercial and consumer settings. Early legal advice is critical — the duties to mitigate and the limitation period begin to run from the moment of breach.
Non-performance, defective work, delay, and cost overruns. Substantial performance doctrine frequently in issue — courts balance strict compliance against fairness to a contractor who has conferred real benefit.
Failure to deliver conforming goods within agreed timelines. Statutory framework under the Sale of Goods Act governs condition vs. warranty distinction and market price damages. Force majeure claims arise from supply chain disruptions.
Failure to close — damages for lost bargain or specific performance. Unique nature of land makes specific performance readily available, though courts retain discretion where damages would be adequate or the order would cause undue hardship.
Wrongful dismissal (essentially a repudiatory breach), non-payment, and breach of non-competition or non-solicitation covenants. Dismissed employees must seek comparable alternative employment to mitigate.
Construction and service contracts frequently give rise to claims of non-performance, defective work, or delay. Disputes often centre on whether performance meets contractual specifications, whether delays are excusable, and who bears responsibility for cost overruns. Issues of substantial performance are common — where a contractor has completed most of the work but with minor defects, courts must balance the interest in strict compliance with fairness to a contractor who has conferred substantial benefit. The doctrine allows recovery of the contract price less the cost of remedying defects.
Delay claims engage questions of causation and proof. The plaintiff must show that the delay was caused by the defendant's breach and must quantify the resulting losses — whether loss of use, increased financing costs, or consequential business losses. Where delay is caused by multiple concurrent factors, the burden of separating the defendant's contribution becomes particularly demanding.
Sales and supply agreements may involve failures to deliver goods conforming to contractual specifications or within agreed timelines. The Sale of Goods Act provides a statutory framework for buyer and seller remedies, including damages measured by the difference between contract and market price. Where goods are defective or non-conforming, the buyer's remedies depend on whether the breach is a condition (allowing rejection and termination) or a warranty (allowing damages only) — a distinction that turns on the seriousness of the defect and its impact on the goods' fitness for their intended purpose.
Supply chain disruptions raise issues of force majeure, frustration, and excuse. These defences may apply where external events beyond the parties' control prevent performance, but the bar for establishing them is high — increased cost or difficulty alone is insufficient.
Real estate transactions often produce litigation when a purchaser or vendor fails to close. The court may award damages for the lost bargain — the difference between the contract price and the market value at the date of breach, plus any expenses incurred in reliance on the contract — or, where appropriate, specific performance. Consequential losses, such as lost profits from a business venture dependent on acquiring the property, may be recoverable if they were reasonably foreseeable at the time of contracting.
Employment and independent contractor relationships frequently generate breach claims, particularly where one party repudiates prematurely or fails to honour payment obligations. Wrongful dismissal claims are, in essence, breach of contract claims where the employer terminates without providing reasonable notice or pay in lieu. Damages typically equal the salary and benefits the employee would have earned during the reasonable notice period, less amounts earned or that could have been earned through reasonable mitigation. Non-competition and non-solicitation covenants are enforceable only if reasonable in scope, duration, and geographic extent, and if they protect a legitimate proprietary interest — breach may give rise to injunctive relief and damages.
Defending a breach of contract action requires a clear understanding of both the formation of the contract and the conduct alleged to constitute breach. Multiple defences may be available, ranging from challenges to formation to arguments that excuse or justify non-performance.
| Defence | Basis | Effect If Established |
|---|---|---|
| No Enforceable Contract | Missing element of formation — no offer/acceptance, no consideration, uncertainty of essential terms, or failure to satisfy statutory formalities | Claim dismissed — no contract, no obligation, no breach |
| Frustration & Impossibility | Unforeseen external event — without fault of either party — renders performance impossible, illegal, or so fundamentally different as to constitute a different undertaking | Contract automatically discharged; neither party liable; rights adjusted under Frustrated Contracts Act |
| Substantial Performance | Essential obligations fulfilled; any defects minor relative to the contract's overall purpose | Cannot terminate; damages limited to cost of remedying minor defects |
| Limitation Period | Basic 2-year limitation period under Limitations Act, 2002 expired before proceeding was commenced | Proceeding statute-barred — claim extinguished regardless of merit |
| Waiver & Estoppel | Plaintiff, by words or conduct, indicated it would not insist on strict performance; defendant relied on that representation to its detriment | Plaintiff precluded from resiling from the representation and claiming breach for the waived obligation |
| Accord & Satisfaction | Parties reached a new agreement discharging the original obligation — new consideration accepted in full settlement | Original contract obligation discharged; no breach survives the settlement |
| Failure to Mitigate | Plaintiff did not take reasonable steps to minimize loss after the breach | Damages reduced by the amount the loss could have been avoided through reasonable steps |
A party may deny liability on the basis that no enforceable contract was formed — due to lack of offer and acceptance, absence of consideration, or insufficient certainty of terms. An "agreement to agree" is generally not enforceable unless a sufficient framework exists to fill gaps. Courts distinguish between essential terms that must be certain and ancillary matters that can be implied or determined by objective standards. Where consideration is challenged, the defendant must show that one party's promise was not supported by a corresponding benefit or detriment — though consideration need not be adequate, it must be something of value in the eyes of the law.
Performance may be excused where external circumstances render it impossible or radically different from what was contemplated. The doctrine of frustration discharges both parties from further obligations when, without fault of either, an unforeseen event makes performance impossible, illegal, or so different as to constitute a fundamentally different undertaking. The test is strict — the event must be unforeseen, beyond the parties' control, and so fundamental that it goes to the root of the contract. Increased difficulty or expense does not suffice.
Where frustration is established, the contract is automatically discharged and neither party is liable for breach. Ontario's Frustrated Contracts Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.34, provides for adjustment of rights and liabilities — including recovery of deposits paid before frustration and compensation for partial performance that conferred a benefit on the other party before the frustrating event. These provisions prevent unjust enrichment and allocate the loss of an unforeseen event fairly between innocent parties.
A defendant may assert that performance was completed or substantially completed in accordance with the contract. If proven, this defence defeats the claim entirely or limits damages to the cost of remedying minor defects — preventing the innocent party from treating trivial imperfections as grounds for termination or full refusal to pay. Substantial performance does not require perfection; the essential obligations must be fulfilled and any defects must be minor relative to the contract's overall purpose.
Procedural defences under Ontario's Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B, are significant. Most breach claims must be brought within two years of the date on which the claim was or ought reasonably to have been discovered — based on objective knowledge of the loss, its cause, the identity of the defendant, and that a proceeding would be an appropriate means of seeking a remedy. A 15-year ultimate limitation period runs from the date the claim arose, regardless of discovery. Other procedural defences include waiver (express or implied), promissory estoppel, and accord and satisfaction — each of which can preclude or reduce recovery even where a technical breach occurred.
Common Questions
A fundamental breach strikes at the contract's core, undermining the very essence of what was agreed. In such scenarios, the non-breaching party often has the right to terminate (repudiate) the contract entirely and claim damages for lost opportunities or disrupted plans. Courts assess whether the breach effectively deprives you of the main benefit of the agreement.
By contrast, a minor breach involves a less serious shortfall that doesn't completely ruin the contract's purpose. You can usually claim compensation for any resulting loss, but you generally cannot walk away from the deal altogether. Determining which applies requires analysis of the contract's essential terms, the circumstances of performance, and the severity of the impact on the innocent party's expectations. Misjudging a minor breach as fundamental and terminating can expose you to liability for wrongful repudiation.
You generally cannot simply walk away from an agreement if the other party breaches — unless their breach is so serious that it constitutes a fundamental or repudiatory breach. A relatively minor violation typically does not justify unilateral termination; you may only be entitled to damages while the contract remains in force. Walking away prematurely could lead to a countersuit for wrongful termination.
Most contracts contain termination clauses outlining steps to end the agreement, including notice of breach and cure periods. If your contract lacks explicit termination rules, courts apply common law principles. When deciding to end a contract, document your decision in writing, specifying the breach and referencing the relevant contractual clauses or legal grounds. Failure to follow a methodical approach — including allowing the other party to rectify minor infractions — may expose you to liability even if they initially violated the terms.
A contract may be void or voidable for reasons distinct from mere non-performance. Common grounds include: Missing formation elements — if offer, acceptance, consideration, or intention never coalesced, no valid contract formed; Misrepresentation — false statements inducing the agreement may permit rescission; Illegality — deals contravening statute or public policy are typically void; Incapacity or duress — lacking mental capacity or acting under threats negates genuine consent; and Unconscionability — where a stark power imbalance produced an oppressive bargain.
Gathering evidence such as emails, medical evaluations, or statutory references supports a claim that no true, lawful agreement was formed. If successful, the result is usually rescission or a declaration the contract never existed — sparing you from obligations that a valid contract would have imposed.
Arbitration clauses are generally enforceable in Ontario under the Arbitration Act. Courts will usually uphold them unless the clause was procured by fraud, deals with non-arbitrable matters, or is unconscionable due to prohibitive fees or an unfair forum. Freedom of contract is respected, meaning courts typically will not override your prior decision to arbitrate.
If you file a lawsuit in Superior Court, the defendant can seek a stay of proceedings to compel compliance with the arbitration clause. Some clauses also require preliminary steps — negotiation or mediation — before arbitration. Disregarding those steps can harm your credibility in both settings. Unless extraordinary circumstances apply, a valid arbitration clause removes the conventional litigation route.
Innocent misrepresentation arises when a party makes a false statement honestly believing it to be true and without breaching any duty of care. The primary remedy is rescission; damages are limited unless another cause of action also arises.
Negligent misrepresentation occurs when the representor breaches a duty of care by relaying inaccurate information the other side reasonably relies on. Plaintiffs can claim damages for losses caused by the false statement, and rescission may also be available if the misrepresented term was pivotal.
Fraudulent misrepresentation involves knowingly false statements or reckless indifference to truth. This is the most severe category, enabling rescission, compensatory damages, and potentially punitive damages. Courts decide which category applies by examining the parties' knowledge or expertise, their diligence, and the circumstances in which the misrepresentation arose.
Not every delay constitutes a breach. If the contract specifies a firm deadline or states "time is of the essence," failure to meet that date typically constitutes a breach. Courts also look at the significance of punctual performance even without an explicit provision — if tardiness severely undermines the deal's purpose, it may ground a breach claim.
However, an unforeseen and truly disruptive event — such as a government ban on a product essential for performance — may trigger the doctrine of frustration, which discharges both parties when the contract becomes radically different from what was originally agreed. Frustration is narrow: it applies only when the event is outside normal commercial risk, was not foreseeable, and has drastically changed the contract's foundation. If the contract or general commercial practice contemplates the type of delay that occurred, frustration is unlikely to succeed.
Breach of Contract
For plaintiffs, establishing a breach is often the straightforward part. Recovering what you actually lost — and proving it with enough specificity to survive a mitigation challenge — is where these cases are won or lost. For defendants, the same analysis works in your favour: scrutinizing causation, holding the plaintiff to its mitigation obligations, and identifying the contractual provisions that limit or exclude liability. Grigoras Law acts for both sides on contract disputes across Ontario, from straightforward debt claims to complex multi-party commercial failures.
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service