Small Claims Court Limit Involves Net From Set-Off Upon Sum Assessed | Ajodhia Legal Services
Helpful?
Yes No Share to Facebook

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


Question: Does the set-off amount in a Small Claims Court case take the court limit as the maximum possible starting amount?

Answer:   No,  the Small Claims Court can assess sums higher than the awarded maximum limit but the net judgment must still be within that limit.  This is confirmed by the case 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483, which states that any set-off is deducted from the assessed amount, not the jurisdiction cap, ensuring that the awarded judgment remains compliant with legal thresholds.  At Ajodhia Legal Services, we are here to guide you through understanding these complexities, protecting your rights and ensuring the best possible outcomes for your claims. 


Is the Set-Off Amount In a Small Claims Court Case Calculated From the Capped Court Limit?

In Cases Where A Sum Is Assessed Beyond the Small Claims Court Limit, Any Applicable Set-Off Is Calculated From the Assessed Amount Rather Than From the Court Award Limit; However, the Net Result Must Still Be 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, the amount that can be awarded as a Judgment is limited to $35,000, excluding legal costs or interest. This limit is separate from the amount that may be assessed.  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.

As occurred in the 2146100 case, the Judge assessed just over $42,000 on a Defendant's Claim as a counterclaim that was brought against the Plaintiff by the Defendant. The Judge also assessed a sum just over $21,000 on the Plaintiff's Claim as owed by the Defendant.  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 monetary jurisdiction limit of the Small Claims Court applies to the amount which the court may issue as a Judgment award rather than as a limit to an amount that the court may assess.  This becomes important in cases where a set-off calculation is involved whereas the set-off sum is taken away from the assessed sum rather than taken away from the Small Claims Court limit.

Need Help?Let's Get Started Today

NOTE: Do not send confidential information through the web form.  Use the web form only for your introduction.   Learn Why?
6

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: Ajodhia Legal 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 Ajodhia Legal Services. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.86
Ajodhia Legal Services

343 Bartley Bull Parkway
Brampton, Ontario,
L6W 2L5
 
P: (647) 882-8205
E: ajodhialegalservices@gmail.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
Ernie, the AI Bot