CITATION: Millard, Villada, Ferguson v. Di Carlo, 2014 ONSC 1218
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 373/13
DATE: 20140225
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, NORDHEIMER AND D. L. CORBETT JJ.
BETWEEN:
DELLEN MILLARD, JAVIER VILLADA and JANE FERGUSON
Defendants
(Applicants in Judicial Review)
– and –
MARIA DI CARLO
Plaintiff
(Respondent in Judicial Review)
Jane L. Ferguson and Hilary Goodman, for the Defendants (Applicants in Judicial Review)
In Person
HEARD at Toronto: February 25, 2014
D. L. CORBETT J. (orally)
[1] The applicants are defendants in a Small Claims Court proceeding brought by the respondent. The applicants brought a motion to dismiss the Small Claims Court action on the basis, among others, that the claim was barred by a limitations period and, that in any event, the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over the claim.
[2] Deputy Judge Richardson concluded that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction because the claims include allegations of theft. The Deputy Judge left the limitations defence to be decided at trial.
[3] The applicants seek judicial review on the basis that the Deputy Judge “erred in law” in failing to dismiss the claim on both the jurisdiction and limitations issues.
[4] The Divisional Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from final orders of the Small Claims Court. There are no appeals of interlocutory decisions of the Small Claims Court (see Courts of Justice Act, s. 31).
[5] Judicial review may lie from an interlocutory decision of the Small Claims Court but only in a narrow range of circumstances such as when that court acts without jurisdiction (see Peck v. Residential Property Management Inc. and Pardar v. McKoy, 2011 ONSC 2549).
[6] The order of the Deputy Judge is interlocutory. It makes a provisional determination of jurisdiction on the basis of allegations of theft, which may or may not be proved at trial. One aspect of the order deals with jurisdiction but that does not elevate this into a matter properly addressed on judicial review. Generally speaking, the Small Claims Court has the jurisdiction to decide whether a matter is within its jurisdiction.
[7] The Small Claims Court is supposed to be a summary and inexpensive process. This is an appeal on the basis of an alleged error of law and not judicial review of an alleged lack of jurisdiction.
[8] The application is dismissed.
KITELEY J.
COSTS
[9] I have endorsed the Application Record, “Judicial review application is dismissed for oral reasons given. Applicants shall pay costs to the respondent fixed in the amount of $500 on account of legal services she incurred to prepare her responding factum.”
D. L. CORBETT J.
KITELEY J.
NORDHEIMER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 25, 2014
Date of Release: February 28, 2014
CITATION: Millard, Villada, Ferguson v. Di Carlo, 2014 ONSC 1218
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 373/13
DATE: 20140225
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, NORDHEIMER AND D. L. CORBETT JJ.
BETWEEN:
DELLEN MILLARD, JAVIER VILLADA and JANE FERGUSON
Defendants
(Applicants in Judicial Review)
– and –
MARIA DI CARLO
Plaintiff
(Respondent in Judicial Review)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D. L. CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 25, 2014
Date of Release: February 28, 2014