Small Claims Court matters

The plaintiff purchased a used 2006 BMW from the defendant dealer.

Shortly after purchase, the vehicle experienced significant mechanical issues, including excessive oil consumption and computer malfunctions.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, claiming the vehicle was not of merchantable quality.

The court found that because the 'as is' box on the purchase agreement was not checked, the implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Act applied.

The court held the vehicle was not reasonably fit for its purpose and awarded the plaintiff $11,606.21 for repair estimates and inspection costs, dismissing claims for rental car and insurance expenses.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellant was predominantly successful in overturning a wrongful dismissal finding but unsuccessful on other grounds.

The court assessed the appellant's claim for substantial indemnity costs, which was significantly higher than the damages awarded and the Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court found that Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to appeals, nor does Rule 14.07 of the Small Claims Court Rules provide for enhanced costs on appeal.

Considering factors under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 57.01(1) of the Rules, including the proportionality of costs to the amount at stake and the level of success, the court awarded the appellant $10,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, significantly less than the $56,320.96 claimed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against CIBC for allegedly damaging his credit rating.

The trial judge had found the claim was statute-barred and that there was no basis in law for finding CIBC liable.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the appellant was aware of his credit issues more than two years before commencing the action, and that the continuous act provisions of the Limitations Act did not apply.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his application for judicial review for delay.

The underlying application sought to review an interlocutory order of the Small Claims Court regarding amendments to pleadings and an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the Registrar correctly dismissed the application because no record was required for an interlocutory proceeding, and the applicant failed to perfect it in time.

Furthermore, the court noted the application lacked merit as judicial review of interlocutory Small Claims Court orders is restricted to jurisdictional issues, which were not present here.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a claim for unpaid wages for carpentry work and a counterclaim for deficient work.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence on the deficiencies and repair costs because the appellant was not qualified as an expert.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that evidence regarding the nature of faulty work and repair valuation requires expert opinion, which the appellant failed to provide.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $20,000 in damages for copyright infringement of musical compositions.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge's reasons, even when supplemented by the record, failed to adequately explain what was decided and why, particularly regarding the application of copyright principles to the facts.

Concluding that the inadequate reasons prevented meaningful appellate review and resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the court ordered a new trial.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court order requiring him to produce his allegedly defective iPhone 5 to the respondent for expert inspection.

The applicant argued the Deputy Judge lacked jurisdiction because the Small Claims Court Rules do not explicitly provide for pre-trial property inspection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that Rule 1.03 permits the court to make orders by analogy to the Rules of Civil Procedure where the Small Claims Court Rules are inadequate.

The court found that ordering a pre-trial inspection was necessary to ensure fairness and a level playing field, given the applicant's intent to rely on expert evidence regarding the device.

This ruling addresses costs and procedural issues following a prior decision that directed a trial due to inconsistent evidence, rather than granting summary judgment on an application.

The court ordered the matter transferred to the Small Claims Court, as agreed by the parties.

The court declined to make its previous factual findings binding on the trial judge or to issue an order regarding adverse inferences for a missing witness.

Costs were awarded to the respondents, as the applicants were found responsible for initiating the proceedings in the Superior Court via an application, which was deemed an incorrect format given the material factual disputes.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim against the respondent for joint liability on a $10,000 loan.

The trial judge had found that the loan was made solely to the respondent's ex-husband, as the cheque was payable to and endorsed only by him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of fact, but reduced the trial costs awarded against the appellant from $1,500 to $500.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent for the installation of two heating systems in a duplex.

The appellant argued the respondent's quote was for two furnaces, while the respondent maintained it was for one and that the parties agreed to double the price for two units.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual finding that the quote was for a single furnace.

The court also dismissed the appellant's claims regarding trial unfairness and bias, concluding the appeal should be dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent for the installation of two heating systems in her duplex.

The appellant argued the respondent's quote was for two furnaces, not one, and alleged the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors, failed to apply the Consumer Protection Act, and denied her a fair trial as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the quote was for a single furnace was supported by evidence.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of trial fairness, noting that while the trial judge could have managed the process better, the appellant was able to present her case.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $10,047.96 for defective hardwood flooring installation.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred by finding negligence without expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or credibility assessments.

The court also held that expert evidence was not required to establish the standard of care for non-technical matters such as squeaky floors.

The tenant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the landlord net damages for property damage to a leased commercial premises.

The tenant advanced four grounds of appeal, including evidentiary rulings, credibility assessments, and the trial judge's failure to advise her to retain counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court awarded the landlord substantial indemnity costs due to a Rule 49 offer to settle and the tenant's confusing and unnecessarily expensive approach to the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding the individual appellant personally liable on a credit application guarantee.

The appellants argued that trial fairness was compromised by the Deputy Judge's excessive intervention and cross-examination of witnesses.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the Deputy Judge crossed the line of permissible intervention by extensively cross-examining the appellants' witnesses and acting as a participant in the trial.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a new trial ordered before a different judge.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent real estate brokerage $10,750 in lost commission for breach of a buyer representation agreement.

On appeal, the appellant argued he should only be liable for half the commission because his wife also signed the agreement of purchase and sale for the new property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that this argument was not raised at trial, there was no evidence the wife signed the agreement, and the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding the appellant liable for the full amount.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a Small Claims Court order regarding costs.

The motion for leave to appeal was granted.

The court found that there was a conflicting decision by another judge on the interpretation of condominium declarations concerning liability for legal costs, satisfying Rule 62.02(4)(a).

Additionally, the court found good reason to doubt the correctness of the original order, as the Deputy Judge appeared to have relied on irrelevant considerations (Article X of the condominium declaration) in exercising discretion over costs, potentially exceeding jurisdiction under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, thus satisfying Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim for damages for constructive dismissal and unpaid wages against her former employer.

The trial judge found she was constructively dismissed but that her employment contract governed the notice period, which she had received.

The trial judge also found she had abandoned her claims for unpaid wages during the trial.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant had abandoned her claims for specific monetary compensation, as she presented no documentary quantification and explicitly stated she was not expecting compensation for them.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to repay a $22,080 loan to the respondent.

The loan originated from a Mutual Help Club organized by the respondent.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by effectively amending the pleadings to treat the claim as a personal loan rather than a club debt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error and properly concluded the respondent advanced the funds in her personal capacity.