Small Claims Court matters - ODC

The moving party sought leave to appeal a Small Claims Court costs order to the Divisional Court.

The underlying matter involved three small claims actions tried together.

The moving party argued the Deputy Judge erred in applying the 15 percent limit on costs under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act and in awarding costs against him on a claim that was struck.

The court validated service of the motion on the respondent's paralegal and granted leave to appeal, finding strong grounds that the Deputy Judge may have erred in principle regarding the statutory costs limit and the awarding of costs on the struck claim.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for unpaid immigration consulting services.

At trial, the appellant's paralegal closed their case without calling the appellant to testify.

After the respondent testified, the appellant attempted to take the stand to give evidence-in-chief, which the trial judge refused as an improper splitting of the case.

The Divisional Court found no reversible error in the trial judge's management of the trial process and dismissed the appeal.

The moving party sought to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court who had dismissed her appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment regarding an unpaid loan.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, holding that under the Courts of Justice Act, a single judge's decision on a Small Claims Court appeal is a decision of the Divisional Court, and any further appeal lies only to the Court of Appeal with leave.

Section 21(5) of the Act, which allows a panel to set aside a single judge's decision, applies only to motions, not appeals.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for unpaid invoices and the respondent homeowner's set-off claim.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the contract by failing to provide materials and labour in a good and workmanlike manner, and that the appellant failed to prove its claim for the outstanding balance.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the breach.

The court also held that while the trial judge erred in considering damages when only a set-off was permitted, this did not affect the outcome as the appellant failed to prove its claim.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $25,000 for the construction of a pool.

The central issue was whether a $50,000 payment made by the appellant was a deposit for the pool project or payment for past construction projects.

The Divisional Court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found that the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Following the dismissal of a Small Claims Court appeal, the successful respondent sought costs for both the trial and the appeal.

The court declined to award trial costs, noting they had already been dealt with by the trial judge.

Finding the respondent's claimed hours for the appeal excessive, the court fixed costs of the appeal at $1,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants retained the respondent paralegal firm for statutory accident benefits claims following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent orally represented that fees would only be paid from settlement proceeds, but the written retainer agreement contained a clause requiring payment of hourly fees if the representation was terminated.

After terminating the relationship, the respondent sued for fees and won in Small Claims Court.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, holding that a contract induced by an oral misrepresentation inconsistent with the written terms cannot be enforced, especially in the context of legal retainers where the professional bears the burden of explaining any alterations to the payment structure.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision where the deputy judge awarded costs without hearing submissions from either party.

The deputy judge subsequently ruled she was functus officio and could not hear submissions regarding an unaccepted offer to settle.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the deputy judge erred in law by concluding she was functus officio before hearing costs submissions, and remitted the matter back to the deputy judge to determine costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her 100 per cent at fault for a parking lot motor vehicle accident.

The appellant had opened her car door into the path of another vehicle.

The trial judge applied Rule 19(c) of the Fault Determination Rules and found the appellant wholly responsible.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error of fact and correctly applied the law.

The applicant, a paralegal, was sued in Small Claims Court by the respondent for the return of fees.

After the trial was adjourned multiple times, the applicant sought a further adjournment, which was refused.

He then commenced an application for judicial review of that refusal, which was dismissed by the Registrar for failure to perfect.

The applicant's motion to set aside the Registrar's order was also dismissed.

The applicant subsequently failed to file an application for leave to appeal within the prescribed time and brought a motion for an extension of time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting the applicant's lack of diligence and that he had already achieved the practical result of adjourning his trial.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay $5,000 for painting services provided by the respondent.

They argued the trial judge erred in finding liability despite poor workmanship, misapplied quantum meruit, and improperly found one appellant was a party to the contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding the reasons were adequate given the informal nature of the Small Claims Court.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents $25,000 in damages for a defectively installed stamped concrete driveway and sidewalk.

The trial judge found that the colour and design were essential terms of the contract and awarded damages based on the cost to remove and replace the concrete.

On appeal, the appellants argued damages should have been assessed based on diminution of value.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's choice of the measure of damages, given the factual finding on the importance of aesthetics.

However, the court reduced the damages to $17,200 to account for the $9,000 already paid by the respondents, preventing a windfall.

The appellants, who were self-represented at trial, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment on the basis of procedural unfairness.

At trial, the respondent was permitted to call witnesses without having delivered a witness list in advance.

The trial judge did not advise the self-represented appellants of their right to object or request an adjournment, nor did he explain that their pleadings were not evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed in his duty to assist a self-represented litigant, which resulted in a denial of natural justice and a miscarriage of justice.

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 appellant engineering firm appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for $25,000 in unpaid fees for a geotechnical report and awarding costs to the respondents.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of the fee claim, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the parties had agreed to a capped fee of '+/- $15,000' and that the appellant breached the agreement by refusing to deliver the final report until its higher invoices were paid.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the trial judge erred in law by awarding costs against the appellant for 'unreasonable behaviour' merely for naming an agent as a defendant, and by awarding legal fees to a self-represented lawyer without evidence of lost income.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 for personal property left in her possession after their common-law relationship ended.

The Divisional Court found the Deputy Judge erred by misapprehending an acknowledgment of ownership as an acknowledgment of value, and by failing to consider the appellant's challenge to the respondent's valuation.

The Court also admitted fresh evidence, including an appraisal report and medical records, finding the appellant's self-represented status and medical impediments excused her inability to present the evidence at trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her various claims against the defendants, which included compensation for a lost diamond ring, a stolen outfit, unreplaced locks, car damage, and legal expenses arising from alleged false statements to the Children's Aid Society.

The Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusions that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove her claims.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay damages for a defectively installed engineered hardwood floor.

The floor buckled because it was glued at the edges without T-moldings, contrary to standard practice, though the respondent had insisted on this installation method.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Justice's conclusions that the appellants bore the contractual risk, that the Consumer Protection Act applied, and that the individual appellant was personally liable under the contract.

The appellant purchased a used vehicle from the respondent at auction on an 'as is' basis.

The next day, the appellant discovered the vehicle was not roadworthy and required significant repairs.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the appellant's claim for damages on the basis that the appellant failed to prove the defect existed at the time of sale and failed to mitigate its damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the trial judge erred by deciding the case on an unpleaded causation issue and by treating a failure to mitigate as a complete bar to recovery.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing their claim for damages to their in-ground pool caused by improper winterization.

The appellants alleged the respondent breached its contractual obligation to provide pool training and was negligent in failing to warn them of the dangers of improper winterization.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by reaching conclusions and making findings of fact prior to hearing all of the evidence, which tainted his assessment of the subsequent evidence and expert testimony.