Yes No Share to Facebook
Adjudicative Jurisdiction: The Types of Cases Handled Within Small Claims Court Proceedings
Question: What types of disputes and remedies can Ontario’s Small Claims Court decide?
Answer: Ontario’s Small Claims Court can generally decide civil cases where the remedy sought is payment of money (up to the court’s monetary limit) or the return of personal property valued within that limit, but it cannot grant remedies like injunctions, declarations, contract cancellation, or detailed accountings under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (ss. 23(1), 25). For Ontario residents needing non-legal, informational guidance in the Legal Profession Ecosystem about whether a dispute fits this jurisdiction, Success.Legal™ provides an Ontario-focused service to help you understand the process and next steps.
Litigative Subject-Matter Authority
As a specialized branch of the Superior Court of Justice, the Small Claims Court offers an efficient forum for resolving civil disputes involving modest claims. Its jurisdiction over subject matter is carefully prescribed by statute and regulation, which determine both the scope and the limits of the disputes it may hear.
The Law
Below is section 23(1) and section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which need careful reading together, including special attention to what is unstated. In particular, section 23(1) states that the Small Claims Court is empowered to handle matters that involve, "the payment of money" or "the recovery of possession of personal property" subject to the prescribed monetary limits. Accordingly, litigation seeking a remedy, meaning an adjudicative decision, that involves something other than "the payment of money" or "the recovery of possession of personal property", such as requests for declarative relief, injunctive relief, contractual rescission, accountings, among other concerns, is precluded from proceeding within the Small Claims Court. With this said, where section 23(1) is satisfied by claims that seek only "the payment of money" or "the recovery of possession of personal property", within the monetary jurisdiction, may be handled, regardless of the subject-matter, by the Small Claims Court. This breadth to handle any type of case so long as the remedy sought is "the payment of money" or "the recovery of possession of personal property", is addressed by carefully reading the legislative mandate in section 25 where it is said, "The Small Claims Court shall hear and determine ... all questions of law ..."; and accordingly, it appears clear that the directive to hear any type of case, meaning cause of action, meaning reason for suing, is imposed upon the Small Claims Court.
Jurisdiction
23 (1) The Small Claims Court,
(a) has jurisdiction in any action for the payment of money where the amount claimed does not exceed the prescribed amount exclusive of interest and costs; and
(b) has jurisdiction in any action for the recovery of possession of personal property where the value of the property does not exceed the prescribed amount.
...
Summary hearings
25 The Small Claims Court shall hear and determine in a summary way all questions of law and fact and may make such order as is considered just and agreeable to good conscience.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520, highlighted the essential role of the Small Claims Court in promoting access to justice. While citing the Supreme Court decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, the Court of Appeal emphasized that access to justice is among the greatest challenges facing the Canadian legal system, with rising costs and delays threatening the rule of law. Building on that principle, the Court of Appeal observed that the Small Claims Court mandate per section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act to “hear and determine in a summary way all questions of law and fact” serves a vital function by offering meaningful and cost-effective adjudication of disputes involving modest claims. The Small Claims Court, with simplified processes designed to handle a high volume of cases efficiently, thereby helps to ensure that individuals who might otherwise be unable to afford litigation can still pursue or defend their legal rights.
[33] The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that access to justice is a significant and ongoing challenge to the justice system with the potential to threaten the rule of law. In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 1, the court held:
Ensuring access to justice is the greatest challenge to the rule of law in Canada today. Trials have become increasingly expensive and protracted. Most Canadians cannot afford to sue when they are wronged or defend themselves when they are sued, and cannot afford to go to trial. Without an effective and accessible means of enforcing rights, the rule of law is threatened. Without public adjudication of civil cases, the development of the common law is stunted.
[34] The Small Claims Court is mandated under s. 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, to “hear and determine in a summary way all questions of law and fact and may make such order as is considered just and agreeable to good conscience.” The Small Claims Court plays a vital role in the administration of justice in the province by ensuring meaningful and cost effective access to justice for cases involving relatively modest claims for damages. In order to meet its mandate, the Small Claims Court’s process and procedures are designed to ensure that it can handle a large volume of cases in an efficient and economical manner.
In Ontario Deputy Judges Association v. Ontario, 2005 CanLII 42263, the Superior Court commented indirectly on the range of matters that may be addressed in the Small Claims Court. Although the case was primarily concerned with the powers and responsibilities of Deputy Judges, the Court noted that they preside over disputes involving subjects as diverse as Charter rights, defamation, creditor rights, intellectual property, estate issues, and medical malpractice. While the remedies available in the Small Claims Court are limited to the payment of money or the recovery of personal property, the acknowledgment underscores the broad scope of legal issues that may still come before Deputy Judges. As the decision observed, the Small Claims Court is the busiest court in Ontario, frequently confronting increasingly complex legal problems despite its modest monetary jurisdiction.
[18] Deputy judges can hear a wide range of cases and have broad jurisdiction over proceedings involving the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, defamation, creditors' rights, intellectual property claims, estate litigation, and medical malpractice, among others. Deputy judges also exercise a form of equitable jurisdiction, which adds to their role and responsibilities as judicial officers. The Small Claims Court can hear and determine all questions of law and fact and may make orders considered just and agreeable to good conscience.
...
[20] Deputy judges carry out judicial functions for large numbers of litigants contesting significant sums of money. The Small Claims Court is the busiest court in Ontario and the court that citizens are most likely to encounter. Litigants in Small Claims Court are increasingly represented by counsel and contend with increasingly complex legal issues. ...
Conclusion
The Small Claims Court jurisdiction is both limited and wide-ranging. It is limited because the Court can only order certain remedies, being the payment of money or the return of personal property, within a set dollar amount. At the same time, it is wide-ranging because almost any type of legal dispute can be heard, as long as the remedy fits those categories. This design makes the Small Claims Court an efficient, affordable place to resolve disputes that might otherwise be out of reach. In doing so, the Small Claims Court helps to ensure that justice is accessible and that the rule of law is upheld in everyday conflicts.