BETWEEN
Bo Hou
ONT ARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
SMALL CLAIMS COURT
Richmond Hill
ORDER OF THE COURT
Claim No. SC-25-00002813-0000
Plaintiff(s)
and
Sang Woo Shim; Sao Jung Kang
Defendants(s)
BEFORE: Deputy Judge ROSSI
HELD BY: D In person IB] Videoconference D Teleconference D In writing D Hybrid
DATE: March 19, 2026 at 10:00am
EVENT TYPE: Hearing - assessment
APPEARING: (Names, emails, and phone numbers)
Plaintiff(s ): Bo Hou (narisuhu@gmail.com)(416-951-8959) Representati\A9:
Defendant(s): Sang Woo Shim (ssshimcpa@yahoo.ca)(416-318-1288) Representati\A9:
Defendant(s): Sao Jung Kang (ksooj75@gmail.com)(437-879-9544) Representati\A9:
Present Present □
Present □
Present □
Present □
Present □
This is an assessment hearing for damages against the defendants. The defendants have been noted in default. However, this action arises out of a landlord and tenant matter. The plaintiff is the former landlord of the defendants (tenants). The plaintiff claims for unpaid utility charges which were the alleged responsibility of the tenants under the lease.
On an assessment hearing or motion for default judgment, the court is not a rubber stamp and must still consider the legal tenability of the claim [see 627220 Ontario Inc. v. Waterloo North Hydro Inc., [2007] O.J. No. 4109 (Sm. Cl. Ct.)]. The plaintiff still bears the onus to establish its entitlement to the requested judgment as a matter of fact and law [see Maxium Financial Services Inc. v. Bhagvati, [2012] O.J. No.521 (Sm. Cl. Ct.); Northgate Properties Inc. v. United Spray Booths Ltd., [2012] O.J. No 2407 (Sm. Cl. Ct.); and Diepstraten v. Mitchell, [2019] O.J. No.
5092 (Sm. Cl. Ct.).
In this case, the Small Claims Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all applications under that Act with respect to all matters in which jurisdiction is conferred on it by that Act. See Section 168(2).
That includes claims against tenants and former tenants not only for rent, but also for utility bills (See sections 87 and 88.2, among other provisions, of the Act).
This court clearly does not have jurisdiction in this matter, and judgment cannot be granted. This action is dismissed.
The plaintiff is recommended to seek immediate legal advice with respect to his options to recover the amount claimed.