Small Claims Court matters - ODC

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her Small Claims Court action against the respondents.

The deputy judge had dismissed the action under Rule 12.02(3) on the basis that it was commenced after the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant was denied procedural fairness because the deputy judge had only solicited written submissions on whether the action was an abuse of process, not on the limitation period defence.

The dismissal order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Small Claims Court.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court costs decision where the Deputy Judge ordered them, as the successful party on a motion, to pay $1,500 in costs to the plaintiff.

This amount was 15 times the maximum allowable under Rule 15.07 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court absent special circumstances.

The Divisional Court found that the Deputy Judge's failure to provide reasons for the elevated costs award constituted a breach of procedural fairness.

The costs decision was set aside and remitted back to the Deputy Judge for reconsideration and provision of reasons.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against a car dealership for the value of a provincial government rebate on an electric vehicle.

The appellant argued on appeal that the dealership lied under oath and knew the car would not qualify for the rebate, arguments not raised at trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the dealership's statement of eligibility was not a promise or guarantee, and that the contract placed responsibility for seeking the rebate on the buyer.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her action against the municipality for property damage caused by falling tree branches.

She also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence regarding subsequent tree damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the new evidence irrelevant to the issues at trial.

The appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in concluding the municipality took reasonable care and did not cause a substantial interference with the appellant's property.

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the appellant sought costs of $9,454.44, while the respondent proposed $6,000.

The Divisional Court fixed the costs of the appeal at $8,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the appellant's actual costs were over $42,000.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for breach of contract regarding the restoration of a 1986 Ford Bronco and granting the respondent's counterclaim for the balance of the contract price.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding whether the vehicle was to be made drivable and improperly admitted an expert report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were grounded in the evidence and noting the appellant himself had introduced the expert report at trial without challenging the expert's qualifications.

The moving party, a lawyer and law professor, brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing his motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court default judgment regarding an unpaid $20,000 loan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting it was brought out of time and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court highlighted the moving party's pattern of delay and uncooperative behaviour, awarding costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed its action and stayed two other actions on the motions judge's own initiative during a default judgment motion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in law by failing to follow the mandatory procedural steps under Rule 12.02(4) of the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

The failure to provide notice and an opportunity to make submissions deprived the appellant of procedural fairness.

The dismissed and stayed actions were reinstated.

The appellant purchased a statue at an auction in 2006, relying on the auction house's representations that it was an authentic work.

In 2018, he discovered it was a fake and that the auction house had been warned prior to the sale.

The trial judge found the auction house liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and ordered a refund, but failed to award prejudgment interest.

On cross-appeal, the Divisional Court varied the judgment to include $6,000 in prejudgment interest, finding that the cause of action arose in 2006 and the trial judge erred by failing to exercise her discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to address the interest claim.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for a roofing contract dispute.

The appellant argued the trial was procedurally unfair due to the deputy judge's frequent interventions and comments, which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the deputy judge's well-intended activism became a reversible error by taking over the trial and improperly limiting the self-represented appellant's cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered before a different deputy judge.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.

They argued the Deputy Judge erred by failing to inquire into the competence of their unlicensed agent under s. 26 of the Courts of Justice Act, and that they received ineffective assistance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no duty on a Deputy Judge to conduct such an inquiry absent proper grounds, which were not present here.

The court also noted the appellants failed to give notice of the appeal to the agent, precluding the ineffective assistance argument.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to repay $25,000 she borrowed from her sister, the respondent.

The appellant argued the loan was contingent on her receiving funds from a third-party lender, which turned out to be a fraudulent scheme.

The Divisional Court found that the interpretation of the oral contract was a question of mixed fact and law, subject to deference.

The court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that there was no agreement making repayment contingent on the third-party loan, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicants sought to quash an order of the Small Claims Court that amended the defendants to include a representative of a trade union.

The applicants argued the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to make a representation order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Small Claims Court Rules contain a gap regarding representation orders, which the Deputy Judge properly filled by relying on Rule 1.03(2) to apply Rule 12.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant bank appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that awarded postjudgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate rather than the contractual rate of 19.8%.

The Divisional Court found that the Deputy Judge erred in law by failing to provide reasons for departing from the contractual rate and by failing to follow binding authority which requires the contractual rate to be applied absent exceptional circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and postjudgment interest was set at 19.8% per annum.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single judge's decision that dismissed his motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court order.

The Divisional Court panel found that the motions judge applied the correct legal principles and that there was no reasonable explanation for the moving party's delay of over three years.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or reasonable apprehension of bias, the court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party.

The appellant rental car company sued the respondent renter and his insurer for a $10,000 deductible incurred after the rented vehicle was damaged in an accident.

The rental agreement required the renter to pay the deductible regardless of fault.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action, finding it was barred by s. 263(5)(a.1) of the Insurance Act.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, confirming that the statutory first-party payor system prohibits rental companies from suing renters for deductibles incurred under their own direct compensation property damage coverage.

The appellant psychologist provided treatment to the respondent, an injured worker, beyond the sessions approved by the WSIB.

The appellant provided the services based on assurances from the respondent's paralegal that the WSIB would pay.

When the WSIB did not pay, the appellant sued the respondent in Small Claims Court for her unpaid account.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no contract and no unjust enrichment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the respondent had made it clear he could not pay, and that the appellant had assumed the risk of non-payment by the WSIB.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to transfer their Small Claims Court action and the plaintiff's Small Claims Court action for unpaid wages into the Superior Court, and to consolidate them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The defendants had strategically commenced their claim in Small Claims Court and could still commence a new action in the Superior Court without prejudice, as no limitation period had expired.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for a defective driveway installation.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly bifurcated the trial and awarded an amount exceeding the claim.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in awarding judgment in excess of the amended claim of $4,381.65.

However, the court declined to order a re-hearing, finding the respondent had established liability and damages up to the claimed amount.

The appeal was allowed to reduce the judgment to $4,381.65.

The appellant appealed an order made on a motion to transfer an action to the Small Claims Court.

The motion judge had ordered that the successful party at trial would have their costs of the action to the date of transfer in the cause.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motion judge lacked jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act to order costs payable in another court or to fetter the discretion of the Small Claims Court trial judge regarding costs.