Reasonable Mitigation Obligations: Involves Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Losses or Damages | Lynxs Paralegal
Helpful?
Yes No Share to Facebook

Reasonable Mitigation Obligations:

Involves Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Losses or Damages



Last Updated: August 22 2026

Question: How can I get help in Ontario to draft or review a legal document for my business without hiring a lawyer for every step?

Answer: You can get practical Ontario-focused document help from Lynxs Paralegal by having a paralegal or legal team draft, review, and revise key business forms so you can move faster and reduce costly mistakes, with clear next steps that fit your situation.  Call (647) 249-6676 to discuss your document, timelines, and what you need to sign or file, and get value from legal services designed for business owners who want accurate results without unnecessary expense.

Add this website to Google Preferred Sources


The Duty to Mitigate Including the Standard of Efforts to Do So

In a conscientious society, reasonably minded persons prefer to avoid waste; and accordingly, the law imposes the principle of mitigation, being a duty to mitigate, upon a harmed party. The duty to mitigate imposes a requirement upon a harmed person to act reasonably by taking steps that reduce or control losses and applies to all areas of law.

Note: Please contact Lynxs Paralegal by phone at: (647) 249-6676 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.

The Law

The Supreme Court very well explained the duty to mitigate within the case of Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board[2012] 2 S.C.R. 675, whereas the court said:


[23] This Court in Asamera Oil Corp. v. Seal Oil & General Corp., 1978 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 633, cited (at pp. 660-61) with approval the statement of Viscount Haldane L.C. in British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. v. Underground Electric Railways Company of London, Ltd., [1912] A.C.  673, at p. 689:

The fundamental basis is thus compensation for pecuniary loss naturally flowing from the breach; but this first principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any part of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps.

[24] In British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., 2004 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 74, at para. 176, this Court explained that “[l]osses that could reasonably have been avoided are, in effect, caused by the plaintiff’s inaction, rather than the defendant’s wrong.” As a general rule, a plaintiff will not be able to recover for those losses which he could have avoided by taking reasonable steps.  Where it is alleged that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate, the burden of proof is on the defendant, who needs to prove both that the plaintiff has failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate and that mitigation was possible (Red Deer College v. Michaels, 1975 CanLII 15 (SCC), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324; Asamera; Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, 2008 SCC 20 (CanLII), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 661, at para. 30).

[25] On the other hand, a plaintiff who does take reasonable steps to mitigate loss may recover, as damages, the costs and expenses incurred in taking those reasonable steps, provided that the costs and expenses are reasonable and were truly incurred in mitigation of damages (see P. Bates, “Mitigation of Damages: A Matter of Commercial Common Sense” (1992), 13 Advocates’ Q. 273).  The valuation of damages is therefore a balancing process: as the Federal Court of Appeal stated in Redpath Industries Ltd. v. Cisco (The), 1993 CanLII 3025 (FCA), [1994] 2 F.C. 279, at p. 302: “The Court must make sure that the victim is compensated for his loss; but it must at the same time make sure that the wrongdoer is not abused.” Mitigation is a doctrine based on fairness and common sense, which seeks to do justice between the parties in the particular circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, mitigation requires the minimizing of harm. Failure to minimize the harm is a failure to mitigate and may reduce sums that a wrongdoer owes to the person harmed whereas when a failure to mitigate occurs, it is the person who was harmed and failed to reasonably minimize loss that caused some of the harm.   The wrongdoer is liable only for the portion of harm caused by the wrongdoer. Examples of mitigation include, among other things, the reasonable efforts of a wrongfully dismissed employee to seek fresh employment or for the victim of an injury to attend rehabilitation rather than to allow injuries to fester while loss of income for time off work accrues needlessly. 

Conclusion

A Plaintiff (or Defendant within a counterclaim) is required to mitigate by taking reasonable steps to keep losses at a minimum.  Where a Plaintiff fails to reasonably take steps to minimize losses, it is the inaction of the Plaintiff rather than the wrongdoing of the Defendant that caused such losses.  Where failure to mitigate is alleged by the Defendant, it is the Defendant who holds the duty to prove that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate and that a reasonable opportunity to mitigate was available; furthermore, the duty upon the Plaintiff is to take reasonable steps in the effort to mitigate rather than take steps to perfectly mitigate and a Defendant is unable to use the vision of hindsight to argue what the possible opportunities to mitigate were available to the Plaintiff.  Again, the duty is to act reasonably without expectations of perfection.

At
Our Desk Now!
Need Help? Let's Get Started Today

NOTE: Do not send confidential information through the web form.  Use the web form only for your introduction.   Learn Why?
7

NOTE: A significant amount of online searches using phrases like “lawyers in my area” or “top lawyer in” typically indicates a pressing requirement for reliable legal support rather than a specific designation.  In Ontario, regulated paralegals operate under the same Law Society that governs lawyers, giving them the authority to represent clients in selected litigation issues.  Skills in advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural knowledge form the foundation of this role.  Lynxs Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and impactful advocacy to achieve effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.

AR, BN, CA+|EN, DT, ES, FA, FR, GU, HE, HI
IT, KO, PA, PT, RU, TA, TL, UK, UR, VI, ZH
Send a Message to: Lynxs Paralegal

NOTE: Do not send confidential details about your case.  Using this website does not establish a legal-representative/client relationship.  Use the website for your introduction with Lynxs Paralegal. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.249
Lynxs Paralegal



431 Davis Drive

Newmarket, Ontario,
L3Y 2P1   [Map]

P: (647) 249-6676
E: info@lynxslegal.com

Hours of Business:

10:00AM – 5:00PM
10:00AM – 5:00PM
10:00AM – 5:00PM
10:00AM – 5:00PM
10:00AM – 5:00PM
Monday:
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:

By appointment only.  Call for details.
Messages may be left anytime.


Toronto
Barrie
North York
York Region
and Surrounding Areas.

Application Hosted on Microsoft Azure Cloud Web Servers | Analytics by Google
Let’s Encrypt SSL certificate is a service provided by the Internet Security Research Group (ISRG)
All names, logos and/or trademarks are those of their respective owners.

This webpage was served on: September 13 2026 at 11:33:23PM Eastern.

.
Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A