Last Updated: , 66 days ago.
In Ontario Small Claims Court, does the set-off amount have to start from the $35,000 award limit rather than the assessed amount?
In Ontario Small Claims Court, the $35,000 monetary limit applies to the net judgment the court awards, not to the total you can have assessed for damages, and when a set-off applies the set-off is calculated from the assessed amount rather than from the award limit; however, the net result still must fall within the court’s award jurisdiction, which the approach in 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483 supports as long as the final judgment is within the limit, for practical guidance on your pleadings and how the math is typically framed in a paralegal run Small Claims case in Ontario, call PKM Legal Services at (519) 410-5250.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
If a Set-Off Applies In a Small Claims Court Case, Is the Set-Off Amount Based Upon the Court Limit As a the Maximum Starting Point?
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.
Note: For immediate help, please contact PKM Legal Services by phone at: (519) 410-5250 to retain services or to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
Understanding the Small Claims Court Jurisdiction to Award Judgment As Net Set-Off Despite An Above Limit Assessment
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 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483, case confirms the point that the Small Claims Court may assess any sum of damages and may apply from that assessed sum, rather than apply from the monetary jurisdiction cap, an applicable set-off sum so long as the a net Judgment award remains within the court award limit. This basis for applying a set-off was confirmed whereas 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 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.
NOTE: A significant quantity of online searches utilising “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a demand for prompt and competent legal assistance, rather than a precise professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and can represent clients in specific legal proceedings. Advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural adeptness are fundamental to this role. PKM Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed authority, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy with the goal of achieving effective and beneficial outcomes for clients.
