Yes No Share to Facebook
Adjudicative Jurisdiction: The Types of Cases Handled Within Small Claims Court Proceedings
Question: What types of cases can be heard in the Small Claims Court?
Answer: The Small Claims Court can hear a wide range of disputes involving claims for "the payment of money" or "the recovery of possession of personal property," regardless of the legal issue at hand, providing an accessible and cost-effective means for individuals to resolve their disputes efficiently.
Litigative Subject-Matter Authority
The Small Claims Court, as a branch of the Superior Court of Justice, serves as an accessible forum for civil disputes involving limited monetary amounts and defined categories of claims. Its subject-matter jurisdiction is set out in statute and regulation, which establish the boundaries of the cases that may properly be adjudicated.
The Law
The authority of the Small Claims Court is set out in section 23(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which says in simple terms that the Court may only grant remedies for the payment of money or the return of personal property, each within the prescribed monetary limit. Other forms of relief, such as injunctions, declarations, contract rescission, or accountings, are outside its reach and must be pursued in higher court. At the same time, section 25 directs the Small Claims Court to decide “all questions of law and fact” that arise in cases properly before it. This means that as long as the claim is for money or personal property within the limit, the Small Claims Court may hear virtually any cause of action, from breach of contract to negligence and beyond. Put plainly, the Small Claims Court is narrow in remedies but broad in subject matter: it can deal with almost any type of dispute, but only where the requested outcome is money or the return of property within its jurisdiction.
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, reaffirmed the vital role of the Small Claims Court in ensuring access to justice. Citing the Supreme Court of Canada’s remarks in Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, the Court emphasized that growing costs and delays continue to undermine the ability of ordinary Canadians to resolve disputes, thereby threatening the rule of law itself. Within this framework, the Court pointed to the Small Claims Court’s statutory mandate in section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, to “hear and determine in a summary way all questions of law and fact”, as a mechanism that allows disputes over modest claims to be resolved both efficiently and fairly. Through this simplified but robust process, the Small Claims Court provides a practical avenue for individuals who might otherwise be unable to litigate effectively to pursue or defend their 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 breadth of matters that may arise in the Small Claims Court was noted indirectly. Although the case primarily addressed the role and duties of Deputy Judges, the Superior Court recognized that such judges preside over disputes involving issues as varied as Charter rights, defamation, creditor rights, intellectual property, estate litigation, and medical malpractice. While remedies in the Small Claims Court remain confined to the payment of money or the recovery of personal property, this acknowledgment illustrates the wide spectrum of legal questions that can, and often do, arise before Deputy Judges in the Small Claims Court forum. As the Superior Court observed, the Small Claims Court is the busiest court in Ontario, one that litigants are most likely to encounter, and it frequently deals with increasingly complex legal issues despite the relatively modest financial limits imposed on its 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.