Small Claims Court matters - ONSCDC

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claims for breach of partnership and unjust enrichment, and ordering them to pay the respondent damages for breach of contract.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court rejected as it could have been obtained before trial.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the respondent was a lender, not a partner, and that there was a juristic reason for the payments she received.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages against the respondent roofing company.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the scope of the roofing contract, misapplied the burden of proof, and failed to apply the correct standard of care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied principles of contractual interpretation, properly required the appellant to prove causation on a balance of probabilities, and made reasonable factual findings that the respondent's work did not cause the alleged defects.

The applicant law firm obtained a default judgment in Small Claims Court against the respondent for unpaid legal fees.

The respondent successfully moved to set aside the default judgment, citing mental health issues that caused him to miss settlement conferences.

The applicant sought judicial review of the order setting aside the default judgment and brought a motion for a stay to prevent the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the respondent's home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court noted that there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory Small Claims Court order and judicial review cannot be used to circumvent this.

Air Canada appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to three passengers for delayed flights and denied boarding.

The Divisional Court first quashed the appeals against two of the passengers, holding that the $3,500 monetary threshold for appeals under s. 31(a) of the Courts of Justice Act applies to each plaintiff individually, not in aggregate.

Regarding the remaining passenger, the court dismissed Air Canada's arguments that the trial judge erred in applying the Montreal Convention and the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR).

The court found that damages were properly awarded for delay under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, and that standard compensation under s. 19 of the APPR was appropriate because Air Canada failed to offer alternative travel arrangements.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for $35,000 in damages for breach of contract against the respondent for failing to publish advertisements.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that in the context of the Small Claims Court's mandate and the trial record, the brief oral reasons were sufficient to explain that the appellant failed to prove its damages due to the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on its revenue.

The self-represented appellant sought to appeal a Small Claims Court order refusing to set aside the dismissal of his lawsuit for a $396.62 refund regarding a defective computer.

The Registrar issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to which the appellant did not respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that it lacked jurisdiction under s. 31(a) of the Courts of Justice Act because the amount in issue was under $3,500, and the appeal documents were incoherent.

Following the summary dismissal of the appellants' appeal for failing to provide Small Claims Court transcripts, the respondent sought costs of $12,812.73.

The court awarded elevated costs of $7,500 to the respondent, noting the appellants' failure to comply with court directions, their late adjournment request, and the unnecessary expenses incurred by the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $2,922 for painting and plastering work performed at the appellant's apartment buildings.

The appellant argued the work was unauthorized and there was no evidence it was completed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusion that the work was done.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision to award compensation on a quantum meruit basis, noting it would be inappropriate for the appellant to benefit from the work without paying for it.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision and brought a motion for a true copy of the trial audiotapes, alleging that the transcripts omitted comments showing a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.

The appellant also sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to show good reason to doubt the accuracy of the transcripts under s. 48(2) of the Evidence Act, and that the alleged omitted comments would not support a finding of bias.

The request for an extension of time was consequently dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Deputy Judge's decision granting default judgment to the plaintiff.

The Divisional Court found that the Deputy Judge misapplied the law by refusing to hear the defendant, who was present and ready to proceed despite lacking an interpreter, and by harshly denying a brief adjournment requested by counsel to allow witnesses to arrive.

The appeal was allowed, the default judgment was set aside, and the appellant was granted leave to file a Defence and Counterclaim.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding her liable under a conditional sales contract for a motor vehicle.

She argued the trial judge erred by admitting business records and hearsay evidence without compliance with the notice requirements of section 35 of the Evidence Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 27(1) of the Courts of Justice Act permits the admission of relevant hearsay in Small Claims Court proceedings, and that section 35 of the Evidence Act is an enabling provision that does not restrict other statutory avenues for admitting business records.

The evidence was found sufficient to establish liability.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the successful plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs claimed partial indemnity costs up to the date of their settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court considered the proportionality of costs in small claims matters and the settlement offers made by both parties.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs but fixed costs at $4,000 all-inclusive in favour of the plaintiffs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim and granting the defendants' counterclaim.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of the adequacy of the Deputy Judge's reasons, noting that neither party had addressed it.

The court adjourned the appeal to allow the parties to amend their factums to address whether the reasons met the minimum threshold for adequacy.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a conditional sales contract for a car loan.

The central issue was the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court to admit hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court noted a potential conflict between section 27 of the Courts of Justice Act and section 2 of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of hearsay.

As neither party addressed this issue in their factums, the court adjourned the appeal to allow the parties to amend their factums.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents damages for goods damaged during a move using a rented truck.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of liability and the sufficiency of evidence for the damages.

However, the court found the trial judge erred by failing to account for depreciation of the damaged items and by awarding the cost of the truck rental and mileage, which amounted to unjust enrichment.

The damages award was reduced accordingly.

The appellant bank appealed from Small Claims Court decisions where the trial judges declined to award contractual interest and pre-proceeding collection expenses on uncontested credit card debt claims.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, holding that pre-proceeding collection expenses calculated as a fixed percentage of the debt constitute a liquidated demand for money.

The Court also held that, absent exceptional circumstances, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest must be awarded at the rate stipulated in the credit card agreement.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a swimming pool construction contract.

The trial judge had awarded the respondents $6,400.87 but failed to provide adequate legal analysis or demonstrate the application of proper legal principles in his reasons.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient for appellate review, as neither party could point to the legal path taken to reach the conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered pursuant to section 134(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her solicitor negligence action as statute-barred.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action where the limitation period has clearly expired.

The court found the limitation period began to run when the solicitor ceased acting for the appellant and the damage was suffered, making the action out of time.

The court also found no evidence that the respondent waived the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a basement renovation dispute, alleging that the trial judge's comments and interventions created a reasonable apprehension of bias and that he failed to accommodate an appellant's hearing impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge appropriately accommodated the hearing impairment and that his interventions, when viewed in the context of a Small Claims Court trial involving self-represented litigants, did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $10,000 for breach of contract after the appellants failed to close a real estate transaction.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding the respondent mitigated its damages, in calculating the damages relative to the Small Claims Court monetary limit, and in awarding costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent's mitigation efforts reasonable, the damage calculation proper, and the costs award within the rules.