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

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


Question: Does the maximum amount that can be awarded in a Small Claims Court case influence the calculation of a set-off?

Answer:   The maximum award limit in Small Claims Court is $35,000, but set-offs are calculated from assessed amounts above this limit.   Freed Legal Services LLP can assist you in understanding how this process works and ensure your rights are upheld throughout your case.


Does the Maximum Amount That Can Be Awarded In a Small Claims Court Case Become the Maximum Starting Point When Calculating a Set-Off?

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, 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.

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 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.

Get a FREE ½ HOUR CONSULTATION

At
Our Desk Now!
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

NOTE: Many searches involving “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” often reflect a need for immediate, capable legal representation rather than a specific professional title.  In the province of Ontario, licensed paralegals are regulated by the same Law Society that oversees lawyers and are authorized to represent clients in designated litigation matters.  Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural skill are central to that role.  Freed Legal Services delivers representation within its licensed mandate, concentrating on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at achieving efficient and favourable resolutions for clients.

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: Freed 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 Freed Legal Services. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.143
Freed Legal Services

2800 Skymark Avenue, Suite 200
Mississauga, Ontario,
L4W 5A6
 
P: (800) 716-1897
E: info@freedlaw.ca

Hours of Business:

09:00AM - 09:00PM
09:00AM - 09:00PM
09:00AM - 09:00PM
09:00AM - 09:00PM
09:00AM - 09:00PM
09:00AM - 09:00PM
09:00AM - 09:00PM
Sunday:
Monday:
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:
Saturday:

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








Sign
Up

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