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

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


Question: Can a Small Claims Court Set-Off Exceed the Court's Monetary Limit?

Answer: In Small Claims Court, while the maximum award is capped at $35,000, set-offs are subtracted from the assessed damages. This means the assessed amount can exceed the court's limit, but the net award must fall within the $35,000 cap. This approach is backed by the decision in 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483. For detailed guidance on navigating Small Claims Court limits and considerations, consult with SFG Paralegal Services LLP.


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

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.  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 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.

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 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: SFG Paralegal Services LLP

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 SFG Paralegal Services LLP. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.146
SFG Paralegal Services LLP

10265 Yonge Street, Suite 200
Richmond Hill, Ontario,
L4C 4Y7
 
P: (888) 398-0121
E: sglass@sfglegal.ca

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.

Our Experience, Your Confidence






Sign
Up

Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A
Ernie, the AI Bot