Adjudicative Jurisdiction:

Question:Can a Small Claims Court in Ontario order things other than money or returning personal property?

Answer:In Ontario, the Small Claims Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to remedies for payment of money up to the prescribed limit or the recovery of personal property up to that limit, so requests for other court orders like declarations, injunctions, contract cancellation, or detailed accountings are generally outside its powers.   However, if your claim’s remedy fits the money or property categories, the court can hear disputes arising from contracts, negligence, or other causes of action, and it must decide all questions of law and fact.   If you are unsure whether your Ontario Small Claims matter is framed correctly, VP Legal Services & Notary can help you assess the right remedy, organize your claim or defence, and prepare documents for paralegal and notary support, with guidance you can act on quickly at (437) 286-1499.

Add this website to Google Preferred Sources

Litigative Subject-Matter Authority

The Small Claims Court, as a branch of the Superior Court of Justice, serves as an accessible forum for civil disputes involving limited monetary amounts and defined categories of claims. Its subject-matter jurisdiction is set out in statute and regulation, which establish the boundaries of the cases that may properly be adjudicated.

Note: Please contact VP Legal Services & Notary by phone at: (437) 286-1499 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.

The Law

Below is section 23(1) and section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which need careful reading together, including special attention to what is unstated.  In particular, section 23(1) states that the Small Claims Court is empowered to handle matters that involve, "the payment of money" or "the recovery of possession of personal property" subject to the prescribed monetary limits.  Accordingly, litigation seeking a remedy, meaning an adjudicative decision, that involves something other than "the payment of money" or "the recovery of possession of personal property", such as requests for declarative relief, injunctive relief, contractual rescission, accountings, among other concerns, is precluded from proceeding within the Small Claims Court.  With this said, where section 23(1) is satisfied by claims that seek only "the payment of money" or "the recovery of possession of personal property", within the monetary jurisdiction, may be handled, regardless of the subject-matter, by the Small Claims Court.  This breadth to handle any type of case so long as the remedy sought is "the payment of money" or "the recovery of possession of personal property", is addressed by carefully reading the legislative mandate in section 25 where it is said, "The Small Claims Court shall hear and determine ...  all questions of law ..."; and accordingly, it appears clear that the directive to hear any type of case, meaning cause of action, meaning reason for suing, is imposed upon the Small Claims Court.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520, underscored the central role of the Small Claims Court in advancing access to justice. Drawing on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, the Court stressed that escalating costs and procedural delays threaten the rule of law by placing litigation beyond the reach of many Canadians. In this context, the Court highlighted that the Small Claims Court’s mandate under section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, to “hear and determine in a summary way all questions of law and fact”, is designed to ensure efficient and cost-effective adjudication of modest claims. Through simplified procedures capable of handling significant case volumes, the Small Claims Court provides a practical forum for individuals who might otherwise lack the resources to pursue or defend their legal rights.

In Ontario Deputy Judges Association v. Ontario, 2005 CanLII 42263, the Superior Court commented indirectly on the range of matters that may be addressed in the Small Claims Court. Although the case was primarily concerned with the powers and responsibilities of Deputy Judges, the Court noted that they preside over disputes involving subjects as diverse as Charter rights, defamation, creditor rights, intellectual property, estate issues, and medical malpractice. While the remedies available in the Small Claims Court are limited to the payment of money or the recovery of personal property, the acknowledgment underscores the broad scope of legal issues that may still come before Deputy Judges. As the decision observed, the Small Claims Court is the busiest court in Ontario, frequently confronting increasingly complex legal problems despite its modest monetary jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Small Claims Court embodies a jurisdiction that is limited in remedy but broad in reach. Its powers are confined to granting judgments for money or the recovery of personal property, subject to statutory limits. Yet within those boundaries, it is empowered to address a wide spectrum of legal disputes arising from diverse causes of action. This balance demonstrates the legislature’s intent to establish a forum that is simple, efficient, and affordable, thereby enabling access to justice for claims that might otherwise remain unresolved. In fulfilling this mandate, the Small Claims Court strengthens both public confidence and the practical operation of the rule of law.