In estate litigation, we occasionally find ourselves commencing or responding to smaller monetary claims which may be more economical to litigate in Small Claims Court rather than Superior Court. As the name implies, both the nature and amount of claims within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court are limited. In this article, I will provide an overview of the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court and the remedies available in this court.
What is the monetary limit of the Small Claims Court?
The monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court is as set out in O. Reg. 626/00: SMALL CLAIMS COURT JURISDICTION AND APPEAL LIMIT
On January 1, 2020, the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court was increased from $25,000 to $35,000. The monetary jurisdiction of this court remains at $35,000, although there is periodic discussion about increasing this limit.
Can the Small Claims Court award the same remedies as Superior Court?
The Small Claims Court is a creature of statute. It does not have the same inherent jurisdiction as Superior Court. The remedies available to deputy judges of the Small Claims Court are as set out in the Courts of Justice Act.
Per section 96(3), only the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice, exclusive of the Small Claims Court, may grant equitable relief, unless otherwise provided. The Small Claims Court can grant equitable relief in the form of orders for payment of money and orders for the recovery of possession of personal property. Otherwise, equitable relief such as injunctions cannot be granted in Small Claims Court.
Can a Plaintiff divide a larger claim into multiple Plaintiff’s Claims to fall within the Small Claims $35,000 limit?
It is tempting for a Plaintiff to consider commencing multiple claims in order to fall within the Small Claims limit. However, per rule 6.02 of O. Reg. 258/98: RULES OF THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT:
A cause of action shall not be divided into two or more actions for the purpose of bringing it within the court’s jurisdiction. O. Reg. 258/98, r. 6.02.
That said, a plaintiff may commence multiple claims if the claims each give rise to a separate cause of action against the defendants. For example, if the defendant enters into multiple, separate contracts with the Plaintiff and is in breach of each contract, it may be permissible for the Plaintiff to commence separate claims without offending rule 6.02. See, for example,Bleeks v Keenan, 2014 CanLII 90436. However, if the underlying cause of action between the claims arises out of the same factual situation, it would be improper to commence multiple claims.
Aside from monetary considerations, are there strategic reasons why a claim may not be suited for Small Claims Court?
There are several reasons why a claim within the jurisdiction of Small Claims Court should still be commenced in Superior Court:
- The discovery processes in Small Claims Court are limited and may not afford a Plaintiff with sufficient evidence without the need for motions;
- Costs awarded are limited compared to Superior Court; and
- Self-represented litigants are more common in Small Claims Court and may present unique challenges in resolving the matter.
If you are dealing with an estate litigation issue, we recommend consulting with a lawyer to determine which venue is most appropriate for your claim.
Thanks for reading,