Yes No Share to Facebook
Small Claims Court Limit
Involves Net From Set-Off Upon Sum Assessed
Last Updated: June 12 2026
Question: Is a set-off in an Ontario Small Claims Court case calculated from the amount assessed even if it exceeds the $35,000 court limit?
Answer: Yes, in Ontario Small Claims Court the set-off is typically applied to the amount assessed (even if that assessment is over the $35,000 jurisdictional limit), as long as the final net judgment awarded stays within the court’s monetary limit, consistent with 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483. For clear, cost-effective help with pleadings, set-off strategy, and enforcing or defending a claim anywhere in Ontario, contact SFG Paralegal Services LLP for Paralegal services at (888) 398-0121.
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.
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. Furthermore, in cases where a set-off amount applies, the set-off is calculated from the assessed amount rather than from the award limit.
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 then went on to assess slightly more than $21,000 as due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. In determining the net award due upon the Judgment, the Judge subtracted the $21,000 as a set-off from the $42,000 assessment rather than from $25,000 limit (at that time). Subsequently on Appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the manner in which the Judgment was calculated by dismissing the Appeal.
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 such as “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate an urgent requirement for effective legal assistance rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, the same Law Society that regulates lawyers also governs licensed paralegals, allowing them to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this function. SFG Paralegal Services LLP provides legal representation within its authorized mandate, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
