ENDORSEMENT OF CIVIL MOTION, APPLICATION OR CASE CONFERENCE
SHORT TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: Cawadias-McGeadie et al v. Gueye
BEFORE: Associate Justice Perron
HEARD ON: January 8, 2026
COUNSEL:
Daniel Tucker-Simmons for the plaintiffs
Seynabou Gueye representing herself as defendant
RELIEF REQUESTED: Transfer of action to Small Claims Court
☒ ORDER SIGNED ☐ ON CONSENT
☐ UNOPPOSED ☐ NO ONE APPEARED
☐ ADJOURNED TO Click here to enter a date.
ENDORSEMENT:
This is a motion by the plaintiffs seeking to amend their claim within the monetary limits of the Small Claims Court and to transfer the action to the Small Claims Court.
The defendant did not appear at the motion but sent an email to the plaintiffs’ counsel and to the Court on January 6, 2026 wherein she states that she opposes the relief sought and she seeks to adjourn the motion for 6 months to provide her with an opportunity to respond to the motion.
In her email, the defendant also mentions procedural fairness concerns including that the plaintiffs previously amended their claim for the matter to be within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court and that this, according to her, raises issues regarding the merits of the claim. She also states that she is currently residing in Africa and that her documents in this matter are being stored in Orleans, Ontario and she is therefore unable to defend herself or fully respond.
The motion record was served on the defendant on August 18, 2025 by email. The defendant has had ample time to respond to the motion and as such, I decline her request for an adjournment.
At the outset of the motion, I also had questions regarding my jurisdiction to hear the motion as an Associate Judge because, according to the caselaw referenced in the plaintiff’s factum, the transfer of an action to Small Claims Court requires the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
I am satisfied based on Granville v Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada (2021 ONSC 6728 at para 16) and Ali v Schrauwen (2011 ONSC 2158 at para 2) that I have jurisdiction to grant the transfer if I determine that the transfer is otherwise appropriate.
The primary reason for the plaintiffs agreeing to cap their damages at $50,000 and proceeding with the matter in the Small Claims Court is to proceed as cost effectively as possible going forward because they are concerned that the defendant does not have assets to pay an adverse cost awards.
The defendant has yet to pay an award of costs of $1,500 made by Justice Doyle in favour of the plaintiffs on December 30, 2024.
The plaintiffs submit that there would be no prejudice to the defendant in transferring the action because she has not retained a lawyer in these proceedings and therefore, she has not incurred any costs.
The plaintiffs rely on Justice Rees’ endorsement dated June 11, 2024 wherein it is reflected that the defendant requested an adjournment (of the motion to strike her counterclaim) to try and gather funds to retain a lawyer. That never happened and the plaintiffs’ evidence is that the defendant has made repeated requests for adjournments over the course of these proceedings with intention to retain counsel.
The action has not progressed past the pleadings’ stage.
I note that the defendant’s counterclaim was ultimately struck by Justice Doyle in November 2024.
The facts of this case are therefore distinguishable from the facts in the Granville decision where Associate Justice Frank declined the request for transfer on the basis of the advanced stage of the action and his concern that the plaintiff was attempting to shield himself from the possibility of an adverse cost award in Superior Court.
In the absence of any prejudice to the defendant – in particular any prejudice of costs incurred to date in Superior Court by the defendant – and because the action is still at an early stage and the plaintiffs are prepared to limit their claim to $50,000, I am satisfied that transferring the action to the Small Claims Court will allow the most just, expeditious and least expensive determination of the action.
Because the defendant is self-represented and has previously expressed concerns about having limited funds (or at least insufficient funds to retain counsel), it is also in the best interest of the defendant to have the matter determined in Small Claims Court which has more streamlined procedures and is designed to be more user-friendly for self-represented parties.
The plaintiffs did not request costs of this motion, and I confirm that there shall be no costs of the motion.
Although I indicated during the motion that I would revise the draft Order to specify that the transfer of the action to Small Claims Court would be without prejudice to the defendant’s right to claim costs of this proceeding within the authority of the Small Claims Court, it appears based on Ali (at para 8) that any costs to be ordered as a consequence of the transfer of the action needs to be made by me now.
As indicated above, because the defendant has not responded to the motion or provided any evidence that she would be prejudiced due to costs incurred, it is not appropriate to grant any costs associated with the transfer.
The motion is granted and the matter shall be transferred to the Small Claims Court. The next step in the matter shall be the completion of the next step that is required by the Small Claims Court Rules following the close of pleadings.
Date: January 8, 2026
Associate Justice Perron