Small Claims Court matters - SCJ

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for $25,000 against the respondent for allegedly negligent truck maintenance.

The appellant claimed the respondent allowed rainwater into his truck's fuel system during a roadside repair, causing extensive engine damage.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant failed to prove causation and noting the absence of expert evidence.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court medical negligence action.

He argued that the deputy judge erred by presiding over a motion to dismiss under Rule 12.02 after having presided over a settlement conference in the same matter, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Hussain regarding summary judgment motions.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that a Rule 12.02 motion is not analogous to a summary judgment motion and that the Small Claims Court Rules grant broad powers to dismiss unmeritorious claims, particularly where the appellant failed to provide required expert reports.

The appellant (defendant at trial) appealed a Small Claims Court decision enforcing an early termination liquidated damages clause in a service contract with the respondent.

The appellant argued the clause, which required payment of 50 percent of the remaining contract value, was unreasonable.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the law.

The court affirmed that liquidated damages clauses are presumed enforceable and the onus rests on the party challenging the clause to demonstrate it is oppressive or unreasonable, which the appellant failed to do.

The self-represented appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment on the basis of procedural unfairness.

At trial, the respondent was permitted to call witnesses despite failing to provide a witness list in advance.

The trial judge did not advise the appellants of their right to object or request an adjournment, nor did he explain that their Statement of Defence was not evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed in his duty to assist the self-represented litigants and compounded the unfairness by drawing an adverse inference from their failure to testify.

The appellant spa owner appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her liable for negligence after the respondent suffered severe facial infections from receiving electrolysis shortly after dermal filler injections.

The respondent cross-appealed the $6,000 damages award, seeking $25,000.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on causation and negligence.

The cross-appeal on damages was also dismissed, as the award was not wholly erroneous, but the judgment was varied to include $1,400 in pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff purchased a used 2006 BMW from the defendant dealer.

Shortly after purchase, the vehicle experienced significant mechanical issues, including excessive oil consumption and computer malfunctions.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, claiming the vehicle was not of merchantable quality.

The court found that because the 'as is' box on the purchase agreement was not checked, the implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Act applied.

The court held the vehicle was not reasonably fit for its purpose and awarded the plaintiff $11,606.21 for repair estimates and inspection costs, dismissing claims for rental car and insurance expenses.

A law firm sought to collect $5,458.44 in unpaid fees from a former client.

After facing a three-year delay for an assessment hearing under the Solicitors Act, the firm moved for leave to stay the assessment and proceed in Small Claims Court.

The court interpreted section 23 of the Solicitors Act, concluding that it only bars actions on alternative fee arrangements (such as contingency or block fees) and does not prevent a solicitor from suing on a standard hourly retainer agreement.

The court granted the firm leave to bring an action in Small Claims Court.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent for the installation of two heating systems in a duplex.

The appellant argued the respondent's quote was for two furnaces, while the respondent maintained it was for one and that the parties agreed to double the price for two units.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual finding that the quote was for a single furnace.

The court also dismissed the appellant's claims regarding trial unfairness and bias, concluding the appeal should be dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $2,915.40 to the respondent roofing company for partial roof repairs.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued that the trial judge was biased against him, erred in admitting certain photographs, and made incorrect factual findings regarding the cause of a roof leak.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, noting that the appellant had chosen to only partially repair a roof that was in a deplorable condition.

The appellant garnishee appealed a Small Claims Court order requiring it to pay $19,250.75 to the respondent judgment creditor.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge failed to provide sufficient reasons.

The Superior Court agreed the reasons were inadequate, constituting an error of law, and allowed the appeal.

However, exercising its appellate powers, the court reviewed the record and found the appellant had circumvented the garnishment process by paying the debtor's suppliers instead of the court clerk.

Consequently, the court ordered the appellant to pay the garnished amount to the clerk, plus costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its $10,000 breach of contract claim against the respondent for a cancelled convention hall booking.

The trial judge found the parties had mutually agreed to cancel the contract and that the cancellation clause was an unenforceable penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, credibility findings, or conclusion that the damages claimed were arbitrary and excessive.

The plaintiff sought to recover $25,000 from the defendant, representing a portion of over $153,000 he loaned her during their brief relationship.

The defendant had since made an assignment in bankruptcy and was discharged.

The plaintiff alleged the debt survived the bankruptcy discharge under s. 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, claiming the defendant obtained the funds through fraud.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the claim, finding no evidence that the defendant made any fraudulent misrepresentations at the time the loans were advanced.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowner for unpaid extras on a kitchen renovation project.

The defendant counter-claimed for damages, alleging defective and incomplete work.

The court found that the defendant prematurely and without good cause terminated the contract.

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the extras were authorized and necessary due to structural defects discovered during the renovation.

The plaintiff was awarded $5,090 for the extras, and the defendant's counter-claim was dismissed.

The appellant moving company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $22,419.00 in damages for retaining her personal property.

The dispute arose when the appellant demanded $889.88 instead of the agreed $500.00 for a move, and subsequently placed the respondent's property in storage when she refused to pay the higher amount.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no overriding and palpable error in the trial judge's conclusions that there was a fixed price contract and that the damage award was appropriate.

The court also rejected the appellant's claim of judicial bias.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for a deficiency balance following the repossession and sale of a vehicle.

The Deputy Judge had dismissed the claim on the basis that the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under Part V of the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA).

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the Small Claims Court is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice and has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving the PPSA within its monetary limits.

The court also admitted fresh evidence regarding the Notice of Sale and granted judgment for the appellant for the deficiency balance.

Following a trial where the self-represented plaintiff was awarded $3,000, the court assessed the plaintiff's claim for costs.

The court allowed disbursements for filing fees and postal charges, and awarded a reduced amount for travel costs due to a lack of context provided by the plaintiff.

The court denied the plaintiff's claim for lawyer's fees, noting it was not raised at trial and was not strictly a disbursement.

Costs were fixed at $219.05.

The respondent successfully defended an appeal of a $10,000 Small Claims Court judgment and sought $12,500 in costs for the appeal and the costs motion.

The court noted that the costs claimed were out of proportion to the value of the case.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the limits on costs in Small Claims Court matters under the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed the costs of the appeal and motion at $2,500.

The appellants appealed four Small Claims Court decisions dismissing their motions for judgment based on alleged settlements.

The deputy judge had previously set aside default judgments against the respondents, finding no settlements were concluded.

On the subsequent motions to enforce the settlements, the deputy judge dismissed them on the basis of res judicata.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the deputy judge's refusal to recuse himself and agreeing that the issue of settlement was res judicata as it had been squarely raised and decided in the prior motions.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding the purchase of a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am, which he alleged was misrepresented as an original vehicle from the television program 'Knight Rider'.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding this representation and whether it induced the purchase.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the standard of review for findings of fact and found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant did not solely rely on the respondent's representations and had conducted his own due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed.