Small Claims Court matters - ODC

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a Small Claims Court order that denied their motion to set aside a default judgment and awarded $100 in costs against them.

The moving parties argued the appeal was solely regarding costs under s. 133 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act and O. Reg. 626/00, no appeal lies from a Small Claims Court order for less than the prescribed amount of $3,500, which also applies to costs orders.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding an outstanding credit card debt.

He argued that the respondent improperly obtained an order extending the time for service and that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim was issued within the limitation period and that the order extending time for service was an unappealable interlocutory order.

The court also noted the appellant's failure to attend the peremptory hearing and awarded costs of $10,000 to the respondent.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion for an extension of time to serve and file a Notice of Appeal from a Small Claims Court decision.

The delay was short, caused by counsel's inadvertence, and the applicant had formed a timely intention to appeal.

Finding no prejudice to the respondent, the court granted the motion and extended the time by 15 days.

The appellant contractor commenced a Small Claims Court action for unpaid invoices against the respondent homeowners, who had previously commenced a Superior Court action against the appellant for deficient roof repairs.

A Small Claims Court judge stayed the small claims action pending the resolution of the Superior Court matter.

The appellant appealed the stay order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding the stay was an interlocutory order, not a final order.

The court also declined to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review, as a single judge lacked jurisdiction and the proposed application lacked apparent merit.

The appellant valet parking operator appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for the theft of the respondent's vehicle, which was stolen after an employee left it idling and unattended with the keys inside.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on negligence and agency, agreeing that the valet breached the standard of care.

However, the appeal was granted because the trial judge erred by adding a related corporate entity as a defendant on their own initiative without a motion, notice, or an opportunity for the added party to respond.

The matter was remanded for a new trial.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to its former property management company for breach of a restrictive covenant.

The trial judge had awarded damages that included lost profits from both the appellant and a neighbouring condominium corporation that had also terminated its contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in holding the appellant liable for losses attributable to the neighbouring corporation, which was not bound by the restrictive covenant.

The damages award was reduced accordingly.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to appeal two Small Claims Court decisions that vacated writs of seizure and sale, alleging the respondent relied on fraudulent debt settlement agreements with forged signatures.

At the hearing, the respondent conceded that the moving parties could bring a motion in Small Claims Court to set aside the orders for fraud under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and agreed not to raise delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, directing the parties to proceed with motions in the Small Claims Court where the conflicting evidence could be better adjudicated.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that awarded them $1,000 against a corporate auto repair shop but dismissed claims against the shop's individual owners.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in failing to pierce the corporate veil, finding the Consumer Protection Act did not apply, assessing credibility, and denying costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The trial judge correctly concluded the appellants were not 'consumers' under the Act because the vehicle was purchased for business purposes, and properly exercised discretion in declining to award costs.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent lawyer $5,345 for unpaid legal fees.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the trial judge did not adequately advise the self-represented appellant of his right to cross-examine the respondent, and that the trial judge erred in enforcing a limited scope retainer that was not reduced to writing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge provided adequate guidance to the self-represented appellant and that the failure to put the retainer in writing did not invalidate the respondent's claim for services rendered.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $17,918.66 for unsold jewelry under a consignment agreement.

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, argued the trial was unfair due to the handling of her adjournment request and the trial judge's failure to assist her with procedural steps.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to provide necessary assistance to the self-represented litigant regarding the adjournment and the tendering of documentary evidence.

The court also found the trial judge erred in applying an arbitrary 20% discount to the damages calculation.

A new trial was ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision that granted the respondent's second motion to set aside a 2006 default judgment.

The respondent's first motion to set aside the judgment had been dismissed in 2017, a decision upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised in the second motion was res judicata.

The deputy judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second motion, which amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on a final decision.

The appellant car dealership appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $20,179 in damages for misrepresenting the condition of a used vehicle that had previously been designated a 'lemon'.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on liability and the damages for financing and repair costs, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the $1,000 award for mental stress, as there was no medical evidence to support it.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $35,000 for unpaid trailer fees under an agency agreement.

The respondent had sued for only three of seven outstanding invoices to stay within the Small Claims Court's monetary jurisdiction, intending to bring a second action for the remainder.

The Divisional Court held that the right to trailer fees flowed from a single contract, meaning the separate invoices did not constitute separate causes of action.

By splitting the claim to fit within the monetary limit without waiving the excess, the respondent engaged in impermissible cause of action splitting.

The Divisional Court quashed the Small Claims Court decision as a nullity for lack of jurisdiction and ordered the matter to proceed as a Simplified Rules action in the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant, a self-represented lawyer, appealed a Small Claims Court deputy judge's costs award of $3,772.24 against him.

The deputy judge had found 'special circumstances' under Rule 15.07 of the Small Claims Court Rules to award costs exceeding the $100 limit for a motion, concluding the claim was an abuse of process.

In these additional reasons, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal of the costs award, finding no error in principle.

The court noted that while it might not have allowed certain disbursements, the claim was completely lacking a reasonable foundation and the overall costs amount was proportional and reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for water damage allegedly caused by the respondent's window installation.

The Deputy Judge found the appellant failed to prove causation or damages, and alternatively, that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings and no reviewable error in the Deputy Judge's discretionary award of double costs following an offer to settle.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $27,580 for an outstanding landscaping invoice.

At trial, both parties were self-represented.

The deputy judge heard evidence from both parties but did not permit either party to cross-examine the other, despite conflicting evidence regarding who requested changes to the grading plan and the actual balance owing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the Small Claims Court operates in a summary manner, the failure to allow cross-examination or otherwise test the conflicting evidence constituted a breach of procedural fairness.

A new trial was ordered before a different deputy judge.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that lifted a writ of execution against the respondent's property.

The motion judge found that the appellant's collection agent had agreed to settle the entire judgment debt of over $17,000 for a payment of $10,000, which the respondent paid.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law in the motion judge's conclusions regarding the agent's authority to settle and the interpretation of the settlement agreement.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them jointly and severally liable for $11,250 based on unjust enrichment after allegedly failing to deliver money to the respondent's relatives in Egypt.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the Deputy Judge's reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review because they failed to explain why contradictory evidence was resolved in the respondent's favour.

The court also found the Deputy Judge erred in law by admitting a bank document obtained through bribery without ensuring compliance with the rules of evidence, and made a palpable and overriding error by misapprehending the contents of a translated Egyptian police report.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for overtime, mileage, and termination pay.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the personal judgment against Andrejs Ritins as no claim was pleaded against him.

The court also found the trial judge erred in imposing joint and several liability on the two corporate defendants, as one was not incorporated until after some obligations accrued.

The court upheld the overtime and mileage claims based on contract, and awarded $2,300 in termination pay against Ritins International Inc., reducing the total judgment against it to $5,598.18.

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the plaintiff $10,000 for unpaid overtime.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial judge unreasonably refused the defendants' request for an adjournment.

The Divisional Court found that the defendants had ample time to prepare and move for a sealing order prior to trial, and failed to provide medical evidence supporting the individual defendant's absence.

The appeal was dismissed, as the defendants failed to establish a basis to overturn the trial judge's discretionary refusal of the adjournment.