Lindsay Kirk

The plaintiff debt collection agency brought motions for substituted service in three actions commenced in the Superior Court of Justice in Milton against defendants residing in other jurisdictions for amounts well below the Small Claims Court monetary limit.

The court, on its own initiative, considered whether this practice constituted an abuse of process.

The court found that while the practice did not violate any specific rule or statute, it amounted to an abuse of process by systemically disadvantaging out-of-jurisdiction defendants and creating barriers to access to justice.

Relying on its inherent jurisdiction, the court transferred the actions to the Small Claims Court in the defendants' respective home jurisdictions and granted the requested orders for substituted service.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision of the Superior Court of Justice in favor of the respondent bank.

The respondent bank sought recovery of a debt from the appellant and a corporation.

The motion judge found that there was no genuine dispute that the appellant and the corporation were liable for the debt.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding it was an appropriate case for summary judgment and that the motion judge's findings were supported by the record.

The appellant lessor appealed a Small Claims Court decision that reduced damages arising from a defaulted automobile lease based on alleged breaches of the Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate court held that the deputy judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact and law by finding undisclosed charges, misinterpreting lease calculations, and concluding that the lessor engaged in unfair practices without evidentiary support.

The court found the lease’s liquidated damages clause enforceable and determined the lessor was entitled to the arrears and accelerated future lease payments, subject only to a credit for interest improperly applied to a gas card charge.

The appellate court set aside the reduced damages award and substituted judgment reflecting the contractual damages under the lease.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its action and motion for assessment of damages after the respondents were noted in default on a vehicle lease.

The Deputy Judge had dismissed the claim based on alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act despite the deemed admission of liability resulting from the respondents’ default.

The Superior Court held that the Deputy Judge erred in law by disregarding the deemed admission of liability and by making speculative findings about alleged deceptive practices without evidence.

The court also found procedural unfairness because the appellant was given no notice that the claim might be dismissed rather than having deficiencies in the affidavit addressed.

The decision was set aside and the matter remitted to another Small Claims Court judge for a new assessment of damages upon the filing of a more detailed affidavit.