ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
SMALL CLAIMS COURT
Oshawa SCJ
ORDER OF THE COURT
B E T W E E N
JOHNATHAN, LARRY MCQUOID
Claim No.
SC-24-00002003-0000
Plaintiff(s)
and
RENATA KELLOUGH; RENATA & CO. DESIGN INC
Defendants(s)
BEFORE: Deputy Judge ROSSI
HELD BY: o In person o Videoconference o Teleconference x In writing o Hybrid
DATE: March 31, 2026 at 01:00pm
EVENT TYPE: Motion
APPEARING: (Names, emails, and phone numbers)
Plaintiff(s): JOHNATHAN, LARRY MCQUOID (JOHNATHAN_MCQUOID@YAHOO.COM)(905-767-4894)
Present
Representative:
Present
Defendant(s): RENATA KELLOUGH (INFO@RENATAANDCODESIGN.COM)(905-260-4372)
Representative: YASAMIN POURAGHELI [(ypouragheli@bensonpercival.com)] (416-977-9777)
Defendant(s): RENATA & CO. DESIGN INC (INFO@RENATAANDCODESIGN.COM)(905-449-4372)
Representative: YASAMIN POURAGHELI [(ypouragheli@bensonpercival.com)] (416-977-9777)
Present Present
Present Present
Page 2 of 2
Claim No.
SC-24-00002003-0000
ORDER OF THE COURT
On March 31, 2026 a hearing was held in the above matter and the following order was made:
See Schedule "A" Order of Deputy Judge R. Rossi dated March 31, 2026 attached.
March 31, 2026
Date
Schedule "A" – Order of Deputy Judge R. Rossi
This action was commenced on May 9, 2024.
The plaintiff claims for damages against the corporate defendant and its principal for damages arising out of the design and renovations done to the plaintiff’s home. The claims essentally relate to overbilling as follows: (i) overcharging for kitchen cabinetry, vanity cabinetry, counter, backsplash and other items based on similar goods available to like consumers; (ii) overcharges for deliveries that the plaintiff says the cabinet fabricator (who delivered the cabinetry) will testify was not charged by such fabricator; (iii) overcharging on 3 island columns; and (iv) $395.50 in damages for a keyhole design flaw in the beverage centre fridge door that was not part of the design.
The defendants defended this action.
On March 4, 2025, a settlement conference was held. At that settlement conference, the referee ordered that this matter could proceed to trial. There was no production order made at the settlement conference of the nature requested in this motion, only a common order about disclosure of any documents a party intends to rely on.
The plaintiff now brings this motion for an extensive disclosure order requiring the defendants to produce a wide variety of documents for the project relating to supplier and fabricator invoices, purchase receipts, and delivery and transport records, which the plaintiff claims are necessary for a determination of the plaintiff’s claim. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff demanded these documents before the settlement conference, but the defendants did not produce same. The plaintiff filed an affidavit of service indicating service of this motion on the defendants and their legal representative, but no responding materials were filed.
I deny the plaintiff’s request. There is no discovery generally in this court, and the plaintiff has provided no persuasive authority for this court to make the order requested. In fact, the overwhelming authority is that this court has no such jurisdiction on a motion such as this.
In making my order to deny this motion, I make the following findings:
a) Rule 13.05(2)(a)(vi) of the Rules of the Small Claims Court – this provides a settlement conference judge with the power to direct production of documents. It can be ordered by the settlement conference judge at the settlement conference, or if the settlement conference is conducted by a referee, a judge may, on the referee’s recommendation, make any order that may be made under subrule 13.05(1) and (2). There was no such recommendation here. This Rule 13.05(2)(a)(vi) is the only specific reference in the Rules of the Small Claims Court to order the production of documents. However, I am not the settlement conference judge and have no jurisdiction to order production of documents under this motion. In this regard, see for example the case of Petrykowski v 553562 Ontario Ltd. and other cases referred to below.
b) The plaintiff cites the case of Burke v. Lauzon Sound and Automation Inc., [2016] O.J. No. 2914 (Sm. Claims Court) in support of this motion. That Small Claims court decision allowed a disclosure order, choosing not to follow other caselaw which indicated there was no jurisdiction. However, with respect to the court in the Burke case, I do not find that decision to be correct and I choose to follow the more extensive and established caselaw which indicates this court does not have jurisdiction to order production of the documents requested. See, for example, Petrykowski v 553562 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Bell Cartrage), [2010] O.J. No. 1048 (Sm. Claims Court) and the cases referred to therein; Cummings v. Burlington Radio Control Modelers, [2018] O.J. No. 6698 (Sm. Claims Court); Crocker v. Ventawood Management Inc., [2013] O.J. No. 4588 (Sm. Claims Court); and Cathers v. RBC Dominion Securities Inc., [2013] O.J. No. 5119 (Sm. Claims Ct.).
c) The plaintiff also refers to Elguindy v. St. Joseph’s Health Care, [2016] O.J. No. 2742 (Div. Ct.), but that case dealt with a production order made at a settlement conference under Rule 13.05(2)(a)(vi), which is not the case here. Moreover, that court specifically stated at para. 9:
"The purpose of the Small Claims Court is to provide expeditious and low cost resolutions of monetary disputes (CJA, ss. 23-30). In keeping with that purpose, there is no provision in the SCC Rules for discovery generally in the Small Claims Court."
And at para. 10, the court had this to say about the settlement conference production order power under Rule 13.05(2)(a)(vi):
"This is the only place in the SCC Rules that deals with production of documents beyond those the parties intend to rely on and it arises only as part of a settlement conference."
d) I would also add here that there is also no jurisdiction under the Small Court Rules to order third party production. See, for example, Elguindy v. St. Joseph’s Health Care, above.
e) I find that the other cases cited by the plaintiff are irrelevant.
- The motion is therefore dismissed.
Deputy Judge R. Rossi