Yes No Share to Facebook
Adjudicative Jurisdiction: The Types of Cases Handled Within Small Claims Court Proceedings
Question: What kinds of disputes can Ontario’s Small Claims Court hear, and what remedies are not allowed?
Answer: In Ontario, the Small Claims Court can decide many types of civil disputes as long as the remedy sought is limited to payment of money or recovery of possession of personal property within the prescribed monetary limit under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (ss. 23(1), 25), but it generally cannot grant remedies like injunctions, declarations, rescission, or accountings. Wennekers.Legal™ provides Legal Services in Ontario, helping you assess whether your claim fits Small Claims Court jurisdiction and how to frame pleadings to seek the permitted remedies.
Litigative Subject-Matter Authority
As a specialized branch of the Superior Court of Justice, the Small Claims Court offers an efficient forum for resolving civil disputes involving modest claims. Its jurisdiction over subject matter is carefully prescribed by statute and regulation, which determine both the scope and the limits of the disputes it may hear.
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.
Jurisdiction
23 (1) The Small Claims Court,
(a) has jurisdiction in any action for the payment of money where the amount claimed does not exceed the prescribed amount exclusive of interest and costs; and
(b) has jurisdiction in any action for the recovery of possession of personal property where the value of the property does not exceed the prescribed amount.
...
Summary hearings
25 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.
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.
[33] The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that access to justice is a significant and ongoing challenge to the justice system with the potential to threaten the rule of law. In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 1, the court held:
Ensuring access to justice is the greatest challenge to the rule of law in Canada today. Trials have become increasingly expensive and protracted. Most Canadians cannot afford to sue when they are wronged or defend themselves when they are sued, and cannot afford to go to trial. Without an effective and accessible means of enforcing rights, the rule of law is threatened. Without public adjudication of civil cases, the development of the common law is stunted.
[34] The Small Claims Court is mandated under s. 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, to “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.” 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.
In Ontario Deputy Judges Association v. Ontario, 2005 CanLII 42263, the breadth of matters that may arise in the Small Claims Court was noted indirectly. Although the case primarily addressed the role and duties of Deputy Judges, the Superior Court recognized that such judges preside over disputes involving issues as varied as Charter rights, defamation, creditor rights, intellectual property, estate litigation, and medical malpractice. While remedies in the Small Claims Court remain confined to the payment of money or the recovery of personal property, this acknowledgment illustrates the wide spectrum of legal questions that can, and often do, arise before Deputy Judges in the Small Claims Court forum. As the Superior Court observed, the Small Claims Court is the busiest court in Ontario, one that litigants are most likely to encounter, and it frequently deals with increasingly complex legal issues despite the relatively modest financial limits imposed on its jurisdiction.
[18] Deputy judges can hear a wide range of cases and have broad jurisdiction over proceedings involving the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, defamation, creditors' rights, intellectual property claims, estate litigation, and medical malpractice, among others. Deputy judges also exercise a form of equitable jurisdiction, which adds to their role and responsibilities as judicial officers. The Small Claims Court can hear and determine all questions of law and fact and may make orders considered just and agreeable to good conscience.
...
[20] Deputy judges carry out judicial functions for large numbers of litigants contesting significant sums of money. The Small Claims Court is the busiest court in Ontario and the court that citizens are most likely to encounter. Litigants in Small Claims Court are increasingly represented by counsel and contend with increasingly complex legal issues. ...
Conclusion
The subject-matter jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court is both limited and expansive. It is limited in the sense that only certain remedies; namely, the payment of money or the recovery of personal property within the prescribed threshold may be granted. Yet within those boundaries, the adjudicative jurisdiction is expansive, allowing a wide range of legal disputes across many causes of action. This balance reflects the statutory design: to provide a simplified, efficient, and cost-effective forum, for resolving disputes that might otherwise be inaccessible to many litigants. By doing so, the Small Claims Court fulfills an essential role in advancing access to justice while ensuring the rule of law is meaningfully available.
NOTE: A significant number of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a demand for prompt, skilled legal support rather than a specific occupation title. In Ontario, certified paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers, granting them the authority to represent clients in specific legal matters. Core activities in that capacity include advocacy, legal evaluation, and procedural expertise. Wennekers.Legal™ provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and effective advocacy aimed at securing timely and favourable outcomes for clients.