- A successful lawsuit can get you a judgment for money owed, an order requiring someone to do (or stop doing) something, or a formal declaration of your legal rights.
- Every hour spent on a claim pursued mainly for principle is an hour — and often real money — spent that will not be recovered even if you win, because legal costs awards in Ontario…
- Ontario's "loser pays" costs principle exists in part to discourage exactly this kind of litigation: claims pursued for reasons other than a genuine, proportionate need for a legal remedy.
"It's not about the money — it's the principle." It is one of the most common phrases lawyers hear from a prospective client, and it usually comes from a genuine place: someone was wronged, and they want the other side held accountable.
The trouble is that Ontario's civil courts are set up to award money and enforceable remedies, not vindication, apologies, or a sense of justice being served. Before you sue mainly to prove a point, it is worth understanding what that decision actually costs — and how rarely the outcome matches the emotional payoff people expect going in.
What Litigation Can and Can't Give You
A successful lawsuit can get you a judgment for money owed, an order requiring someone to do (or stop doing) something, or a formal declaration of your legal rights. What it generally cannot give you is an apology, an admission of wrongdoing beyond what the judgment legally requires, or the emotional closure people often hope for when they say "it's the principle."
Courts decide legal claims, not personal grievances. A judge can find that someone breached a contract or owes you money; a judge is not in the business of making someone feel sorry.
The Real Cost of Proving a Point
Every hour spent on a claim pursued mainly for principle is an hour — and often real money — spent that will not be recovered even if you win, because legal costs awards in Ontario rarely cover a party's full actual spend. And if you lose, the Courts of Justice Act framework means you may also be ordered to contribute to the other side's costs — turning a matter of "principle" into a real financial loss on top of the one you already had.
There is also the time cost: pursuing a matter through Small Claims Court, Simplified Procedure, or full Superior Court process — including a mandatory settlement conference in Small Claims Court, or mediation in some Superior Court actions — takes sustained attention over an extended period. That is time you are choosing to spend on this dispute instead of anything else.
The Costs Rule Cuts Both Ways
Ontario's "loser pays" costs principle exists in part to discourage exactly this kind of litigation: claims pursued for reasons other than a genuine, proportionate need for a legal remedy. If you sue mainly to make a point and lose, you are not just walking away without vindication — you may be paying toward the other side's legal bill as well, on top of your own.
Even winning does not fully solve this. Costs awards are discretionary and typically only offset part of a winning party's actual legal spend, so "principle" litigation can leave you financially behind even in victory.
Questions to Ask Before You Sue for Principle
- If I stripped away the desire to "win" or be vindicated, would this claim still make financial sense on its own?
- Am I confident the other side can actually pay a judgment, or would winning be a symbolic result only?
- Have I already tried a demand letter, negotiation, or mediation — and if not, why not?
- Am I prepared for the possibility that I could win the legal point but still come out behind financially?
- Is there a non-financial outcome I actually want (a correction, a changed practice, an acknowledgment) that a court can realistically order, or am I hoping for something litigation does not provide?
Answering these honestly tends to clarify, fairly quickly, whether a claim is really about principle or whether there is a solid financial claim underneath the frustration.
When Principle and Financial Sense Actually Align
Sometimes the two are not in tension at all. If the claim has real recoverable value, the other side can pay, and the amount justifies the cost and time of pursuing it, then standing on principle and making a sound financial decision point the same direction — you are not choosing between them.
The problem arises specifically when the claim's recoverable value is small or the other side is unlikely to be able to pay, and the only remaining reason to proceed is the principle itself. That is the scenario worth pausing on before you commit.
Frequently asked questions
Can a court order someone to apologize to me?
Generally, no. Ontario civil courts award money, orders requiring or prohibiting specific conduct, and declarations of legal rights — not apologies or acknowledgments of wrongdoing, except in unusual circumstances tied to a specific remedy.
If I win, doesn't the other side have to pay my legal costs?
Not in full. Costs awards in Ontario are discretionary and typically cover only part of a successful party's actual legal spend, usually on a partial indemnity scale, so winning does not mean coming out even on costs.
Is there ever a good reason to sue mainly for principle?
Some people do, with clear eyes about the financial trade-off — for example, to stop a business practice from continuing or to create a record of what happened. That can be a legitimate choice, as long as it is made deliberately rather than out of frustration alone.
What's a cheaper way to make a point without a full lawsuit?
A firm demand letter, a complaint to a relevant regulator or association, or a request for mediation can sometimes achieve an acknowledgment or change in behaviour without the cost and time of litigation.
This is a litigation question
Start a file online — flat, published fees, reviewed by a licensed Ontario lawyer before a dollar is owed.