Small Claims Court Limit Involves Net From Set-Off Upon Sum Assessed | W.J. Roy Paralegal Services
Helpful?
Yes No Share to Facebook

Small Claims Court Limit Involves Net From Set-Off Upon Sum Assessed


Question: Is the set-off amount in a Small Claims Court case based on the court's maximum award limit?

Answer: No, the set-off amount is calculated from the assessed damages, not the court limit. This ensures that even if damages exceed $35,000, the net judgment awarded will still comply with the Small Claims Court's jurisdictional cap, as established in 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., [2013 ONSC 2483]. For tailored legal guidance, consider discussing your situation with W.J. Roy Paralegal Services.


Does the Set-Off Amount in a Small Claims Court Case Take the Court Limit as the Maximum Possible Starting Amount?

If a Sum Is Assessed That Exceeds the Maximum Amount Allowed By the Small Claims Court, Any Set-Off Will Be taken From the Assessed Amount Rather Than Court Award Limit; However, the Total Amount Awarded Must Remain Within the Court Award Limit.


Understanding the Small Claims Court Jurisdiction to Award Judgment As Net Set-Off Despite An Above Limit Assessment

Small Claims Court Limit Involves Net From Set-Off Upon Sum Assessed In the Small Claims Court, a limit of $35,000, exclusive of legal costs and interest, currently applies; however, this limit applies to the amount that may be awarded as a Judgment rather than a limit upon the sums that may be assessed by the Small Claims Court.  Additionally, when a set-off amount is applicable, it is calculated from the assessed amount rather than from the cap upon the court award.

The Law

The case of 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483, from when a limit of $25,000 applied to the Small Claims Court, confirms that the Small Claims Court may assess any sum and may apply from that sum, rather than from the court jurisdiction limit, a set-off sum when calculating a net Judgment award. Such principle was explicitly stated where it was said:


[17] In terms of the case at bar, the respondents expressly set out in their defendants' claim that they were owed over $42,000 from the appellants. They limited their ultimate recovery, however, to $25,000. Whether that limit is arrived at through set-off or abandonment of any sum over and above the monetary jurisdiction of the court is immaterial in my view: see Dunbar v. Helicon Properties Ltd., 2006 CanLII 25262 (ON SCDC), [2006] O.J. No. 2992, 2006 CarswellOnt 4580, 213 O.A.C. 296 (Div. Ct.).

[18] The respondents claimed a judgment of $25,000. They were awarded a judgment of $21,538.85. In my view, the process amounted to nothing more than the trial judge starting at $42,633 and making deductions for amounts owed to the plaintiff, to arrive at a net figure within the monetary jurisdiction of the court. This process is logically no different than assessing the value of a contract at $50,000, determining that $30,000 had been paid under the contract, leaving a balance owing of $20,000. There could be no doubt, in those circumstances, that the deputy judge had the jurisdiction to make a finding that the initial value of the contract was an amount in excess of the monetary limit of the court. But at the end of the day, it is the net judgment that matters. Here, the amount awarded was within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court and did not exceed the amount claimed in the defendants' claim.

Within the 2146100 case, the Judge assessed slightly more than $42,000 on a counterclaim as brought against the Plaintiff. The Judge then went on to assess slightly more than $21,000 as due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff.  When determining the net Judgment award due, the Judge used the $42,000 assessed amount and applied the $21,000 set-off amount.  Subsequently, upon Appeal, it was argued that the set-off should be calculated from the court jurisdiction limit rather than the assessed amount. The Divisional Court disagreed with the argument and upheld the Judgment from Trial.

Summary Comment

The Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction limit applies to the amount which the court may award rather than the amount the court may assess.  Furthermore, in cases where a set-off calculation is involved, the set-off is taken from the assessed sum rather than from the Small Claims Court limit.

5

AR, BN, CA+|EN, DT, ES, FA, FR, GU, HE, HI
IT, KO, PA, PT, RU, TA, TL, UK, UR, VI, ZH
Send a Message to: W.J. Roy Paralegal Services

NOTE: Do not send confidential details about your case.  Using this website does not establish a legal-representative/client relationship.  Use the website for your introduction with W.J. Roy Paralegal Services. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.40
W.J. Roy Paralegal Services

99 Everett Street
Belleville, Ontario,
K8P 3K5
 
P: (613) 970-0117
E: wallace@wjroyparalegalservices.com

Business Hours:

09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
Monday:
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:

By appointment only.  Call for details.
Messages may be left anytime.




Sign
Up

Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A