4 total
Motion for document production dismissed; Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction for general discovery outside settlement conferences.
The plaintiff brought a motion in Small Claims Court seeking an extensive disclosure order requiring the defendants to produce various supplier and fabricator invoices related to a home renovation project.
The plaintiff alleged overbilling by the defendants.
The Deputy Judge dismissed the motion, finding that the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction to order general discovery or production of documents on a motion.
Such an order can only be made by a settlement conference judge under Rule 13.05(2)(a)(vi) of the Rules of the Small Claims Court.
Insured's claim for stolen vehicle dismissed as statute-barred for missing one-year limitation period.
The defendant insurer brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim regarding a stolen vehicle as statute-barred.
The plaintiff's vehicle was allegedly stolen in October 2023, and the insurer denied coverage in December 2023, advising of the one-year limitation period.
The plaintiff did not commence the action until May 2025.
The court found the action was commenced beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by the Insurance Act and dismissed the claim under Rule 12.02(1).
Small Claims Court action for unpaid utilities dismissed as the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction.
The plaintiff, a former landlord, brought an action in Small Claims Court against former tenants for unpaid utility charges.
The defendants were noted in default, and the matter proceeded to an assessment hearing.
The court dismissed the action, finding that it lacked jurisdiction.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over claims against former tenants for unpaid utilities.
Small Claims action for unpaid commissions dismissed as an abuse of process due to prior litigation.
The plaintiff commenced a Small Claims Court action against a real estate brokerage for unpaid commissions.
The plaintiff had previously brought an action against the team leader and another team member regarding the same commissions under a cooperation agreement, which was dismissed after a trial.
The court found that the current action was an attempt to re-litigate the same issues.
The action was dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and abuse of process, as the plaintiff should have added the brokerage as a defendant in the first action or consolidated the two proceedings.
