Small Claims Court matters - ODC

The appellant paid a $2,500 retainer to a lawyer on behalf of a third party.

When the third party revoked the lawyer's authorization to speak with the appellant, the appellant sued the lawyer and his firm in Small Claims Court for the return of the funds.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the claim under Rule 12 for disclosing no cause of action.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no contract existed between the appellant and the lawyer, and that the lawyer owed no duty of care to the appellant as a non-client third party.

The applicant brought two proceedings to challenge a $250 costs order made by a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge, after leave to appeal had already been denied.

The applicant sought a review under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act and an application for judicial review.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the applications as an abuse of process.

Despite the applicant's written submissions, the court found that using parallel proceedings to circumvent the denial of leave to appeal from an interlocutory costs award is an abuse of process.

Both applications were summarily dismissed with no costs.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondent for unpaid meat deliveries.

The trial judge preferred the respondent's evidence, finding that the individual appellant caused her corporations to issue cheques without adequate funds and personally guaranteed payment.

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

The court also upheld the finding of personal liability against the corporate director.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against his insurer and a remediation contractor for allegedly defective flooring installation following a basement flood.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly assist him as a self-represented litigant, erred in taking a view of the property, improperly rejected evidence, and erred in finding a claim regarding a vapour barrier was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly accommodated the appellant without assuming the role of counsel, had the authority to take a view, appropriately exercised her discretion regarding evidence, and correctly applied the limitation period.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party brought a motion before the Divisional Court seeking to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court order that dismissed his claims against several defendants.

He sought this relief to collect on a $300 judgment against a defunct business.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to provide evidence satisfying the test for an extension of time.

Furthermore, the court noted it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the amount in issue was well below the $2,500 threshold for Divisional Court appeals from the Small Claims Court.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $24,500 for the sale of furniture.

The appellant argued the transaction was a consignment and that the respondent did not own the property to sell it.

The trial judge found the respondent acted as an agent for an undisclosed principal (his wife's company) and could enforce the contract.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the trial judge erred in raising the unpleaded issue of agency because the parties were represented by paralegals, the finding was an alternative to finding the respondent was an owner.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for the return of $25,000 he alleged was misappropriated by the respondents.

The trial judge found the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act and that there was no evidence of fraud to extend the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in his factual findings regarding discoverability and the absence of fraud.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from a Small Claims Court order, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $5,315.

The plaintiff objected to the late delivery of the bill of costs and requested costs in his own favour despite being unsuccessful.

The court rejected the plaintiff's objections, finding no prejudice from the delay, and awarded the defendant costs fixed at $3,750 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against a process server.

The appellant had hired the process server to file a Notice of Intent to Defend, but the document was not filed due to missing fees and an affidavit of service.

The appellant was subsequently noted in default and ordered to pay costs thrown away in the underlying action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the process server did not owe a duty of care to provide legal advice, and that the appellant's own failure to act caused his damages.

The appellant hired the respondents to construct a basement apartment.

The respondents abandoned the project, forcing the appellant to hire another contractor to complete the work.

The appellant sued in Small Claims Court and was awarded damages, but appealed the assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the court found errors of law in the trial judge's denial of additional financing costs and prejudgment interest.

The appeal was allowed in part, increasing the damages award and granting prejudgment interest.

The appellant law firm appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim against the respondent.

The appellant had sued the respondent for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation (later characterized as defamation) over a disputed document report the respondent authored under a pseudonym, which the appellant's former client allegedly used to accuse the appellant of forgery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of a causal connection between the report and the former client's actions.

The appellant builder appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking its claim for $11,300 against the respondent purchasers for the construction of a deck.

The motion judge found an irreconcilable ambiguity in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale regarding whether the deck was included in the purchase price and applied the doctrine of contra proferentem against the builder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation of the contract and denying the appellant's request to adduce fresh evidence.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed its claim and struck its defence to the respondents' counterclaim due to the non-payment of a $600 interlocutory costs order.

The Deputy Judge had proceeded with an uncontested trial, granting default judgment to the respondents.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge erred in law by treating the striking of pleadings as a remedy of first resort and by denying the appellant the opportunity to cure the default when it offered to pay the costs in court.

The court also found a breach of procedural fairness as the appellant was denied the opportunity to make submissions on costs.

The orders were set aside and the matter remitted to a different Deputy Judge.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against a lubrication facility for alleged negligence during a roadside service call.

The appellant claimed the respondent allowed rainwater into his truck's fuel system, causing extensive mechanical damage.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant failed to prove causation and noting the lack of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law in assessing the evidence and concluding the appellant had not met his burden of proof.

The plaintiff restoration company provided emergency water cleanup services after the defendant's basement flooded.

The plaintiff's owner assured the defendant that her insurance would cover the costs and did not provide an estimate before starting work.

When the insurer did not pay, the plaintiff invoiced the defendant for $5,070.42.

The court found the plaintiff had a duty to provide an estimate and that the invoice was exorbitant.

The court awarded the plaintiff $2,548.32, based on the defendant's concession, less $348.32 in costs awarded to the defendant.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review of a Deputy Judge's costs order.

The Divisional Court found that the Deputy Judge lacked jurisdiction to order costs for a settlement conference over which he did not preside, and erred in awarding motion costs exceeding $100 without finding special circumstances under Rule 15.07.

The court varied the costs order, requiring the applicant to pay $100 for the motion, and awarded the applicant his disbursements for the judicial review application.