- Nominal damages are not meant to compensate you for a loss — they exist to acknowledge that a legal wrong occurred.
- The breach itself is not seriously in dispute, or the court finds it proven.
- - A breach of an exclusivity or non-compete term where the plaintiff cannot show it actually lost business - A supplier who technically breached delivery terms, but the buyer sourced…
It is possible to win a breach-of-contract case in Ontario and still walk away with next to nothing in your pocket. This happens more often than people expect: you prove that the other side breached the contract, the court agrees with you, but you cannot show that the breach actually cost you money. In that situation, Ontario courts can award nominal damages — a small, symbolic amount that recognizes your legal right was violated, even without proof of real financial loss.
This article explains when nominal damages come up, why a court would bother awarding a token amount at all, and what it means for your broader strategy if you are considering a claim where losses may be hard to quantify.
What Nominal Damages Actually Are
Nominal damages are not meant to compensate you for a loss — they exist to acknowledge that a legal wrong occurred. The core idea in contract law is that if a valid contract existed and one side breached it, the other side has a right to a remedy, even if that breach happened not to cause any measurable financial harm.
The amount awarded is deliberately modest. It is not calculated from evidence of loss, because by definition there is little or no such evidence in a nominal damages case — it marks a right vindicated, not a substitute for damages you could not prove.
How a Nominal Damages Situation Usually Unfolds
- A contract exists, and it is breached. The breach itself is not seriously in dispute, or the court finds it proven.
- The plaintiff cannot show financial loss flowing from the breach. Maybe the plaintiff obtained the benefit anyway from another source, suffered no measurable setback, or simply cannot produce evidence tying the breach to a dollar figure.
- The court still finds in the plaintiff’s favour on liability. The breach happened; the plaintiff’s rights were violated.
- The court awards a modest, symbolic amount rather than an amount calculated from proven loss, because there is nothing to calculate from.
- Costs become a live issue. Even a nominal-damages win is still a win on liability, but the amount at stake, and how the case was conducted, can affect what a court decides about costs between the parties — an outcome that stays within the court’s discretion.
Situations Where This Comes Up
- A breach of an exclusivity or non-compete term where the plaintiff cannot show it actually lost business
- A supplier who technically breached delivery terms, but the buyer sourced replacement goods without extra cost
- A breach of a procedural or notice obligation in a contract, where the underlying deal still closed on similar terms
- Cases where the real loss is arguably significant but simply cannot be proven with the available evidence
Why Pursue a Claim If the Damages Might Be Nominal?
There can still be good reasons to bring a claim even where the likely damages award is small:
- Establishing a legal principle — a finding that a right exists or was breached can matter for future dealings between the same parties
- Setting up enforcement of related terms — a finding of breach can be a stepping stone to enforcing other contractual rights
- Protecting your position within an ongoing relationship — sometimes the point is proving you were right, not the dollar figure
That said, litigation carries real cost and effort regardless of the damages ultimately available, so this is a strategic conversation worth having with a lawyer before filing — particularly around which court is the right venue for a claim where the value in dispute may be modest.
Nominal Damages vs. an Outright Loss
| Nominal Damages Outcome | Claim Dismissed Outright | |
|---|---|---|
| Was a breach found? | Yes | No, or not proven |
| Is liability established? | Yes | No |
| Amount awarded | A small, symbolic figure | Nothing |
| Useful for future disputes? | Can support a later claim or defence | Generally not |
Frequently asked questions
Is it worth suing if I probably cannot prove much financial loss?
It depends on what you are trying to achieve. If vindicating a right, stopping ongoing conduct, or setting up a future claim matters more than the dollar amount, a nominal-damages outcome can still serve a purpose. If the goal is purely financial recovery, it is worth discussing realistic expectations with a lawyer before starting a claim.
Can I still recover my legal costs if I only get nominal damages?
Costs are always within the court’s discretion, and a nominal-damages result can affect how a court exercises that discretion. It is not automatic either way, and the amount at stake in the claim is one of several factors a court can weigh.
Is nominal damages the same as no damages at all?
No. A nominal damages award means the court found in your favour on liability — the breach was proven — it simply reflects that no compensable loss was proven. That is legally different from having your claim dismissed outright.
Can a contract’s liquidated damages clause avoid this problem?
Sometimes. A properly drafted liquidated damages clause can provide for a set recovery regardless of whether actual loss is easy to prove later, though that clause has to meet its own enforceability test to hold up. It is a good conversation to have when negotiating a contract where losses from breach might be hard to quantify.
This is a litigation question
Start a file online — flat, published fees, reviewed by a licensed Ontario lawyer before a dollar is owed.