7 total
Small claims action dismissed; plaintiff failed to prove loans survived bankruptcy discharge due to fraud.
The plaintiff sought to recover $25,000 from the defendant, representing a portion of over $153,000 he loaned her during their brief relationship.
The defendant had since made an assignment in bankruptcy and was discharged.
The plaintiff alleged the debt survived the bankruptcy discharge under s. 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, claiming the defendant obtained the funds through fraud.
The Small Claims Court dismissed the claim, finding no evidence that the defendant made any fraudulent misrepresentations at the time the loans were advanced.
Limitations defence uncertain; amended claim not struck at motion stage.
The defendants brought a motion in Small Claims Court to strike an amended plaintiff’s claim alleging negligent construction of an in-ground swimming pool.
The defendants argued the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs allegedly discovered their loss in 2009 and commenced the claim outside the two‑year limitation period.
The court held that it was not clear on the pleadings when the claim was discovered, particularly given allegations that the defendants continued attempting to remedy the deficiencies through 2010.
Because it was possible that a proceeding was not yet an appropriate means to remedy the dispute during ongoing repair efforts, the limitation defence was not virtually certain to succeed.
The court declined to strike the claim and left the limitation issue to be determined at trial.
Venue transfer denied where balance of convenience did not favour moving Small Claims action.
The defendant brought a motion in Small Claims Court seeking to stay the plaintiff’s action or alternatively transfer the proceeding from Thunder Bay to the Toronto Small Claims Court.
The dispute concerned the alleged failure to return an insurance deposit under a contract following the termination of a franchise relationship.
The court considered Rule 6 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court and the governing principle in Rule 1.03 emphasizing the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of proceedings.
The judge concluded the dispute primarily involved interpretation of a single written agreement, likely requiring minimal witness evidence.
The defendant failed to establish that the balance of convenience substantially favoured a transfer of venue, particularly given concerns about access to justice and the advanced stage of the proceeding in Thunder Bay.
Default set aside where defendants showed reasonable explanation and potentially meritorious defence.
The defendants brought a motion in Small Claims Court to set aside a noting in default after failing to file a defence within the time prescribed by Rule 9.01 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court.
The court considered the test under Rule 11.06, requiring a reasonable explanation for the default, a meritorious defence, and that the motion be brought as soon as reasonably possible.
The evidence established that the default arose from miscommunication and inadvertence, that the defendants moved promptly once the error was discovered, and that they advanced a defence capable of succeeding if supported by evidence.
Emphasizing the principle in Rule 1.03 that proceedings should be determined on their merits where possible, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the default.
The defendants were permitted to file a defence within ten days, with limited disbursement costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Self-represented plaintiff awarded $219.05 in disbursements; claim for pre-trial legal advice fees denied.
Following a trial where the self-represented plaintiff was awarded $3,000, the court assessed the plaintiff's claim for costs.
The court allowed disbursements for filing fees and postal charges, and awarded a reduced amount for travel costs due to a lack of context provided by the plaintiff.
The court denied the plaintiff's claim for lawyer's fees, noting it was not raised at trial and was not strictly a disbursement.
Costs were fixed at $219.05.
Vendor liable for negligent misrepresentation for undisclosed basement water seepage.
Purchasers of a residential property brought a Small Claims Court action alleging misrepresentation after discovering water seepage and moisture problems in the basement shortly after closing.
The vendors had provided oral assurances and a Property Condition Disclosure Statement indicating that no such issues existed.
The court held that the vendors were liable for negligent misrepresentation because a prior basement seepage issue had not been disclosed and the assurances reasonably induced the purchasers to complete the transaction despite concerns raised in a home inspection report.
Applying the principle that damages should fund corrective measures rather than betterment, the court limited recovery to the cost of repairing the weeping tile system and associated grading.
Judgment was awarded for the cost of these corrective measures.
Negligence claim over furnace installation dismissed for lack of proof and limitation issues.
The plaintiffs sought damages arising from alleged negligent installation of a residential furnace that repeatedly malfunctioned over several years.
The plaintiffs claimed reimbursement for costs incurred replacing electrical components between 2003 and 2010.
The court held the plaintiffs failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants’ installation caused the continuing furnace failures, noting the absence of expert evidence linking the installation to the malfunction.
The court also found the claim was likely barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the alleged issue years earlier.
The action was dismissed.
