Reasonable Mitigation Obligations: Involves Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Losses or Damages | Defend-it Legal Services
Helpful?
Yes No Share to Facebook

Reasonable Mitigation Obligations: Involves Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Losses or Damages


Question: What is the duty to mitigate and how does it affect compensation claims in Canadian law?

Answer: The duty to mitigate requires a harmed party to take reasonable steps to minimize losses following an incident. As explained in Southcott Estates v. T.C.D.S.B., [2012] 2 S.C.R. 675, this principle ensures that compensation only covers the losses directly caused by the defendant’s actions. Failure to mitigate can decrease the compensation received, as avoidable losses are deemed to result from the plaintiff’s inaction. For insights on optimizing compensation claims, contact Defend-it Legal Services.


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

The law despises waste and the doctrine of mitigation, being the duty to mitigate, is the mechanism that imposes an obligation upon a harmed party to take reasonable steps to minimize or control avoidable losses. This doctrine in law requiring efforts to mitigate applies to all matters of law including tort law, contract law, employment law, construction law, among other legal issues.

The Law

The duty to mitigate was articulated well by the Supreme Court within the case of Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board[2012] 2 S.C.R. 675, where it was said that:


[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.   Simply said, where the Defendant does something wrong resulting in harm to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is responsible only for the portion of the harm that arises directly due to the wrongdoing of the Defendant and where a portion of the harm occurs or accrues because the Plaintiff failed to minimize that harm, the Plaintiff is at blame for the portion of the harm. 

Conclusion

The law required that a Plaintiff (or a Defendant within a counterclaim against the Plaintiff) took reasonable steps to mitigate, meaning reduce, losses.  When a person failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate (reduce losses), the law will disallow claims, or the amounts within claims, that arose because of the failure to mitigate whereas the law views the losses that arise from the failure to mitigate as caused by the inaction of the victim rather than by the action of the wrongdoer.  When a Defendant to a lawsuit seeks to argue failure to mitigate as a defence strategy, the Defendant must include such an allegation with the defence pleading documents and it is the Defendant that must prove that the Plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to mitigate the losses and failed to do so. However, the Plaintiff is without a requirement to mitigate perfectly and must only take such steps that are reasonable at the time that the loss is occurring rather than as may appear possible at a later date through hindsight.

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?
6

NOTE: Many searches involving “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” often reflect a need for immediate, capable legal representation rather than a specific professional title.  In the province of Ontario, licensed paralegals are regulated by the same Law Society that oversees lawyers and are authorized to represent clients in designated litigation matters.  Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural skill are central to that role.  Defend-it Legal Services delivers representation within its licensed mandate, concentrating on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at achieving efficient and favourable resolutions 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: Defend-it Legal Services

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 Defend-it Legal Services. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.50
Defend-it Legal Services

490 Kingston Road, Suite 302
Pickering, Ontario,
L1V 1A4

P: (289) 275-3513
P: (833) 243-3336
E: admin@defendit.ca

Hours of Business:

09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
Monday:
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:

Closed on Weekends & Holidays

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

Law Society of British Columbia, Required Disclosure

Our services to you are not provided by a lawyer regulated by the Law Society of British Columbia.  As a result:

  1. We could be required to disclose to third parties your communications with us and any documents you provide in relation to our advice and assistance as such communications will not be subject to solicitor-client privilege; and
  2. We are not required to have professional liability insurance,
  3. There is no statutory complaint process in relation to the services that we provide and
  4. The Law Society of British Columbia has not evaluated or verified our competence, character, and/or fitness to provide the services.

For more information about the Law Society’s innovation sandbox visit https://lawsociety.bc.ca/sandbox.








Sign
Up

Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A
Ernie, the AI Bot