|
Small Claims Court - Nature of the Court. St. Laurent Automotive Group Inc. v. Cheryl Britt
In St. Laurent Automotive Group Inc. v. Cheryl Britt (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a Small Claims Court appeal, this brought against an order for "damages in the amount of $15,000 to St. Laurent Automotive Groups Inc. (Respondent) for the Appellant’s breach of non-export clause".
Here the court considers basics of the Small Claims Court:Small Claims Court Statutory Framework
[13] Before turning to the grounds for appeal, the court will set out the statutory framework of the Small Claims Court. In Riddell v. Huyhn, 2021 ONSC 7112 (Div. Ct.), the court articulated the following:Statutory Scheme
[3] In considering this judicial review application, context matters and access to justice matters. The Court of Appeal held in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 at para. 35 that “[f]ailing to take the Small Claims Court context into account only serves to restrict access to justice by unnecessarily imparting formality and delay into a legal process that is designed to be informal and efficient.”
[4] The Court held at para. 34 that:The Small Claims Court plays a vital role in the administration of justice in the province by ensuring meaningful and cost effective access to justice for cases involving relatively modest claims for damages. In order to meet its mandate, the Small Claims Court’s process and procedures are designed to ensure that it can handle a large volume of cases in an efficient and economical manner. [5] The emphasis on accessible, affordable justice is reflected in special provisions that govern Small Claims Court hearings. Section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“CJA”) provides that the court shall proceed by summary hearings:The Small Claims Court shall hear and determine in a summary way all questions of law and fact and may make such order as is considered just and agreeable to good conscience. [6] There are special rules of evidence set out in section 27 of the CJA. A Small Claims Court deputy judge has discretion to admit as evidence relevant documents and oral testimony, “whether or not the evidence is given or proven under oath or affirmation or admissible in evidence in any other court.” [14] Therefore, in dealing with each ground of appeal below, the court has considered the role of the Small Claims Court which is a high-volume court that is meant to provide a meaningful and cost-effective access to justice. The court is also mindful of s. 27 of Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which provides a flexible approach to the admissibility of evidence. . MINKARIOUS v. 1788795 ONTARIO INC.
In MINKARIOUS v. 1788795 ONTARIO INC. (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a Small Claims Court appeal, here brought against findings that the respondent "had been constructively dismissed from her employment ... and awarded her damages for constructive dismissal of $14,800.00. He also awarded $20,000 pursuant to s. 46.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19 (the “Code”)."
Here the court considers the summary nature of Small Claims Court, and the requirements regarding reasons for decision:[25] Additional considerations apply to decisions of the Small Claims Court. In Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA, the Court reiterated that the Small Claims Court is mandated to “hear and determine in a summary way all questions of law and fact and may make such orders as is considered just and agreeable to good conscience”. At para. 35, the Court described as follows:[35] Reasons from the Small Claims Court must be sufficiently clear to permit judicial review on appeal. They must explain to the litigants what has been decided and why: Doerr v. Sterling Paralegal, 2014 ONSC 2335, at paras. 17-19. However, appellate consideration of Small Claims Court reasons must recognize the informal nature of that court, as well as the volume of cases it handles and its statutory mandate to deal with these cases efficiently. In short, in assessing the adequacy of the reasons, context matters: Massoundinia v. Volfson, 2013 ONCA 29, at para. 9. Just as oral reasons will not necessarily be as detailed as written reasons, reasons from the Small Claims Court will not always be as thorough as those in Superior Court decisions. Failing to take the Small Claims Court context into account only serves to restrict access to justice by unnecessarily imparting formality and delay into a legal process that is designed to be informal and efficient. . Girgis v. Fine Touch Painting Co.
In Girgis v. Fine Touch Painting Co. (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an appeal, this brought against a monetary judgment of the Small Claims Court regarding a house painting contract.
Here the appeal court comments on the summary nature of the Small Claims Court:[10] It is also important to be aware that the Small Claims Court is intended to function in an efficient manner by way of a summary process. Under s. 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43 (CJA) the Small Claims Court is mandated “to hear and determine in a summary way all questions of law and fact….”
|
