If I have more than one remedy for a contract breach in Ontario, do I have to pick one?

Ontario law recognizes the doctrine of election in some contexts: where two remedies are genuinely inconsistent with each other — for example, affirming a contract and simultaneously claiming it is void — you may be required to choose. Pursuing one inconsistent remedy can foreclose the other.

In practice, however, Ontario procedural rules allow plaintiffs to plead alternative and inconsistent claims in the same lawsuit. You can claim both breach of contract damages and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment. You can seek specific performance and plead damages as an alternative if specific performance is refused. The court does not require a binding election at the pleadings stage.

A true binding election occurs when you have communicated a clear and unequivocal choice between inconsistent courses of action and the other party has relied on that choice. Simply pursuing a legal proceeding while keeping options open does not typically constitute a binding election.

However, some actions are one-way doors. If you accept a repudiation of the contract, you cannot later insist on specific performance. If you rescind a contract, you cannot also claim expectation damages for what you would have gained had the contract been performed. In those situations, the choice of direction matters and has consequences.