Small Claims Court matters - SCJ

The plaintiff brought a motion for substituted service of a statement of claim for an unpaid debt.

The court noted that the amount claimed was within the financial limits of the Small Claims Court and the defendant resided outside the jurisdiction where the action was brought.

Citing previous jurisprudence, the court raised concerns that suing out-of-jurisdiction defendants in the Superior Court for Small Claims amounts may constitute an abuse of process.

The court directed the plaintiff to provide written submissions on why the action should not be transferred to the Small Claims Court before deciding on the motion for substituted service.

The plaintiff debt collection agency brought motions for substituted service in three actions commenced in the Superior Court of Justice in Milton against defendants residing in other jurisdictions for amounts well below the Small Claims Court monetary limit.

The court, on its own initiative, considered whether this practice constituted an abuse of process.

The court found that while the practice did not violate any specific rule or statute, it amounted to an abuse of process by systemically disadvantaging out-of-jurisdiction defendants and creating barriers to access to justice.

Relying on its inherent jurisdiction, the court transferred the actions to the Small Claims Court in the defendants' respective home jurisdictions and granted the requested orders for substituted service.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay $24,478.63 in real estate commissions to the respondents.

The appellants argued the Deputy Judge erred in finding an enforceable oral agreement and in applying the principles of unjust enrichment after they purchased a property using the seller's agent instead of the respondents.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's factual inferences or application of the law of unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court and consolidate it with the current action.

The defendant failed to attend the scheduled case conference despite receiving notice.

The court found that both actions involved the same subject matter and directed the plaintiff to prepare a draft order transferring and consolidating the actions, awarding costs of the day to the plaintiff.

The defendant parents sent an email to the local ringette community complaining about the treatment of their daughter by her volunteer coaches and the league.

The plaintiff coaches sued for defamation, seeking $35,000 in damages.

The defendants brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a SLAPP.

The court granted the motion, finding that the email related to a matter of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal reputational harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision in her favour, seeking to introduce fresh evidence regarding the location of her property.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01, noting that fresh evidence alone is not a valid ground of appeal and should be raised in the trial court.

The appellant's submissions failed to state an arguable ground of appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, without prejudice to any further steps the appellant might take in the Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion seeking an order to hold back $7,000 from the proceeds of the sale of the defendant's house to secure a potential judgment for unpaid legal fees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no statutory authority to order execution before judgment in these circumstances.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the motion were treated as a request for a Mareva injunction, the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or provide evidence that the defendant intended to dissipate assets.

The moving party brought an urgent motion to set aside a default judgment and discharge a writ of seizure and sale registered against her property.

The motion was brought during the COVID-19 suspension of Small Claims Court operations, as the property sale was scheduled to close immediately.

The Superior Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to lift the writ on the condition that sufficient funds be held in trust to protect the judgment, while adjourning the motion to set aside the default judgment to the Small Claims Court once operations resume.

The plaintiff bank commenced a collection action for less than $19,000 in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto against a self-represented defendant residing in Elliott Lake.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the proceeding as an abuse of process, arguing it was oppressive to force him to litigate a small claim in Toronto.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct was not vexatious or an abuse of process, but exercised its inherent jurisdiction to transfer the matter to the Small Claims Court in Elliott Lake, noting that claims within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court should ordinarily be litigated there.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay $1,000 plus costs, and brought a motion for leave to have the application heard by the Superior Court of Justice due to urgency.

The court granted leave based on the applicants' significant health issues.

However, the court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that it was an inappropriate attempt to circumvent the statutory prohibition on appealing Small Claims Court decisions under $2,500.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay the final installment for a patio construction contract.

They argued the trial judge prejudged the case and erred by excluding the appellant husband from the courtroom during the respondent's testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's preliminary comments and the arbitrary exclusion of a party in violation of Rule 52.06 created an appearance of unfairness.

A new trial was ordered.

A residential landlord commenced a Small Claims Court action seeking compensation for damage to an oven allegedly caused by tenants.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate a landlord’s claim for property damage against a tenant where the tenant remained in possession when the claim was issued.

Applying authorities interpreting the Residential Tenancies Act, the court held that such claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The claim against the tenant was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

However, the court held that it retained jurisdiction over a guarantor who had signed the tenancy agreement and ordered the guarantor to pay the landlord one-third of the reduced replacement cost after accounting for betterment.

The defendant brought motions for security for costs in two related motor vehicle accident actions commenced by spouses.

Although the plaintiffs had moved to Ghana and were therefore ordinarily resident outside Ontario, they proposed transferring the actions to Small Claims Court.

The court held that if the actions were transferred, security for costs would not be available because the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to order it.

The decision on the motions was therefore reserved for 120 days to allow the plaintiffs to pursue transfer of the actions.

Following judgment in a civil action, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff argued entitlement to enhanced costs on the basis that he had beaten his offer to settle, while the defendant disputed that claim and argued the action should have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The court accepted that the plaintiff had not beaten the offer to settle and found that the proceeding should properly have been brought in Small Claims Court, justifying the exercise of discretion under Rule 57.05 to decline awarding costs to the plaintiff.

However, the court also declined to award costs to the defendant due to misconduct by its agent.

As a result, no costs were awarded to either party.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering payment of an outstanding debt to the respondent for labour, materials, and services.

The central trial issue concerned whether a partial payment had been made within the limitation period, thereby preventing the claim from being statute-barred.

On appeal, the appellants argued that the deputy judge’s extensive interventions during the trial compromised trial fairness and created an appearance of bias, particularly during the examination of the defendant and credibility findings.

The court reviewed the trial transcript and concluded that the nature and tone of the interventions crossed the line from permissible clarification into improper participation.

The trial judge’s questioning formed the basis of adverse credibility findings and created the appearance that conclusions had been reached before all evidence was heard.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered before a different deputy judge.

The appellant property management company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its breach of contract claim arising from the termination of a three‑year property management agreement.

The respondent condominium corporation had terminated the agreement for cause, alleging insubordination, recklessness, or gross negligence.

The appellate court held that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient because they failed to clearly identify which acts constituted cause for termination or explain why individually insufficient acts collectively justified termination.

The absence of adequate reasoning prevented meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different deputy judge.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his malicious prosecution claim against his former landlord.

The underlying dispute arose after the appellant’s arrest and bail conditions preventing him from returning to his rental unit, followed by a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy.

The Small Claims Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over residential tenancy matters under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and recast the remaining claim as malicious prosecution, which was later dismissed after trial.

On appeal, the court held there was evidence supporting the finding that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, including police records and the unappealed Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

Finding no palpable and overriding error, the appeal was dismissed.

Following an appeal from a Deputy Judge’s decision in Small Claims Court, the appellant obtained partial success when the court set aside the dismissal of the claim and allowed the matter to proceed to trial.

However, several key issues—including the identity of the contracting parties, the applicability of the limitation period, and potential personal liability—were reserved for determination at trial.

The court found that the appeal arose largely from a misnomer in the plaintiff’s claim attributable to the appellant itself.

Although the appeal permitted the action to continue, that benefit did not justify awarding costs.

The court therefore declined to award costs to either party.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its action and motion for assessment of damages after the respondents were noted in default on a vehicle lease.

The Deputy Judge had dismissed the claim based on alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act despite the deemed admission of liability resulting from the respondents’ default.

The Superior Court held that the Deputy Judge erred in law by disregarding the deemed admission of liability and by making speculative findings about alleged deceptive practices without evidence.

The court also found procedural unfairness because the appellant was given no notice that the claim might be dismissed rather than having deficiencies in the affidavit addressed.

The decision was set aside and the matter remitted to another Small Claims Court judge for a new assessment of damages upon the filing of a more detailed affidavit.

A homeowner sued a contractor for a refund of the contract price after a lakeside dock constructed under a five‑year workmanship and materials warranty became uneven after two winters.

The contractor argued the damage was caused by extraordinary ice and weather conditions rather than defective construction and counterclaimed for defamation based on threatening emails and alleged reputational harm.

The court found the precise physical cause of the uplift uncertain but concluded the dock’s premature failure, absent a satisfactory exculpatory explanation, entitled the plaintiff to damages.

However, the plaintiff failed to mitigate losses by investigating repair options, and the evidence established the dock was repairable at modest cost.

The court awarded damages limited to the estimated repair cost and dismissed the defendant’s defamation counterclaim for lack of proof of publication or actual loss.