- Damages are the default remedy for breach of contract in Ontario, and for good reason.
- Specific performance is an equitable remedy, meaning it is discretionary rather than automatic, and courts grant it far less often than damages.
- Was it money, goods, services, or something unique like a specific parcel of land or a rare asset?
When someone breaches a contract with you in Ontario, you generally have a choice to make about what you actually want the court to order. Most people assume the only option is money — damages to compensate for the loss. But in certain situations, Ontario courts can instead order specific performance: forcing the breaching party to actually go through with what they promised. Understanding when each remedy is realistic, and why courts lean so heavily toward one over the other, shapes how you should approach your claim from the start.
This article walks through how Ontario courts choose between the two remedies, and what that means for how you frame your case.
The Default: Damages
Damages are the default remedy for breach of contract in Ontario, and for good reason. Awarding money is relatively straightforward for a court to calculate and enforce, it respects the breaching party’s freedom to choose not to perform (as long as they compensate for the resulting loss), and it avoids the court having to supervise ongoing performance of a contract between parties who may no longer want to deal with each other.
Because damages are the default, a plaintiff seeking specific performance instead has to show why money alone will not do the job.
The Exception: Specific Performance
Specific performance is an equitable remedy, meaning it is discretionary rather than automatic, and courts grant it far less often than damages. The central question is whether damages would be an adequate remedy. If money can genuinely put the plaintiff in as good a position as actual performance would have, a court will generally stick with damages rather than order specific performance.
Specific performance becomes realistic mainly where the subject matter of the contract is unique, such that no amount of money could readily buy an equivalent substitute on the market. Real property is the classic example — Ontario courts have long treated land as inherently unique, since even a similar property in the same area is not truly the same asset.
How the Choice Gets Made
- Identify what was actually promised. Was it money, goods, services, or something unique like a specific parcel of land or a rare asset?
- Ask whether a substitute is realistically available. If the plaintiff could reasonably go out and buy an equivalent replacement, damages covering that cost are usually adequate.
- Consider whether the item or right is genuinely unique. Uniqueness is the key factor tipping the balance toward specific performance outside real estate.
- Weigh practical enforcement concerns. Courts are cautious about orders that require ongoing supervision of performance, personal services, or an unwilling party’s continued cooperation.
- Assess available defences. Even where specific performance might otherwise be available, defences like undue hardship, delay, or the plaintiff’s own conduct can defeat the claim.
Damages vs. Specific Performance at a Glance
| Damages | Specific Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| Default or exception | Default remedy | Exception, granted at the court’s discretion |
| Best suited to | Fungible goods, services, most commercial breaches | Unique assets — land, rare goods, certain shares |
| Court’s role after the order | Minimal — pay the amount and the matter ends | Potentially ongoing — court may need to enforce actual performance |
| Key legal test | Compensate the actual loss | Damages must be shown to be an inadequate remedy |
Why It’s Rarely a Free Choice for the Plaintiff
Plaintiffs sometimes assume they can simply ask for whichever remedy they prefer. In practice, a court will not order specific performance just because a plaintiff would rather have the actual item or deal than money — the plaintiff has to establish that damages genuinely would not put them in as good a position. This is a real evidentiary and legal burden, not a formality.
Frequently asked questions
Can I ask for both damages and specific performance in the same claim?
You can plead both as alternative remedies, and courts routinely see claims framed that way. Ultimately, though, a court will generally choose one primary remedy rather than fully awarding both for the same loss, since specific performance and full compensatory damages would otherwise overlap.
Is specific performance available for a broken business contract?
It is possible, but relatively rare outside of contracts involving unique subject matter, such as shares in a closely held company or a distinctive asset. Most ordinary commercial contracts for goods or services are treated as adequately remedied by damages.
Does specific performance mean the court forces someone to work for me?
No. Ontario courts are generally reluctant to order specific performance of personal services contracts, since compelling continued personal cooperation raises practical and policy concerns that go beyond a simple compliance order.
What if the other side simply refuses to comply with a specific performance order?
A court order for specific performance is enforceable like any other court order, and non-compliance can lead to further consequences. That said, practical difficulties with a resistant party are part of why courts are cautious about ordering specific performance in the first place.
This is a litigation question
Start a file online — flat, published fees, reviewed by a licensed Ontario lawyer before a dollar is owed.