|
Small Claims - Evidence. Duka Property Management Inc. v. Estrada
In Duka Property Management Inc. v. Estrada (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court partially allowed a multiple defendants' Small Claims Court appeal, that brought against joint and several orders for "$15,000.00 in damages for intrusion upon seclusion, $2,000 for trespass, and $10,000 in punitive damages, this against a "condominium corporation, the management company and the security company".
The court considers the evidentiary flexibility of the Small Claims Court, here wrt hearsay:E. Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
[35] The appellants also submit that the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence. The two examples cited are the police report and the respondent’s references to things Cst. Stoyko said during his cross-examinations of witnesses. I have already considered the police report. The respondent’s references to what the police officer said in his questions are not evidence, so the issue of admissibility does not arise. In any event, s. 27(2) of the Courts of Justice Act expressly permits the admission of hearsay evidence in Small Claims Court proceedings: Tobey v. Loranger (c.o.b. Dan’s Auto Sales), 2020 ONSC 4669 (Div. Ct.), at para.16. . Duka Property Management Inc. v. Estrada
In Duka Property Management Inc. v. Estrada (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court partially allowed a multiple defendants' Small Claims Court appeal, that brought against joint and several orders for "$15,000.00 in damages for intrusion upon seclusion, $2,000 for trespass, and $10,000 in punitive damages, this against a "condominium corporation, the management company and the security company".
Here the court considered R18.02 ['Evidence at Trial - Written Statements, Documents and Records'] of the Small Claims rules:D. Rule 18.02 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court
[32] The appellants submit that the trial judge erred by admitting the contents of an Amended Trial Document Brief which the respondent produced at the outset of the trial because it was not previously disclosed in accordance with the timelines provided by r. 18.02 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court, O.Reg. 258/98. While the Document Brief contained a variety of documents, the focus of the appellants’ submissions were “Suite Entry Notices” relating to other occasions on which employees of the appellants had entered the respondent’s unit.
[33] Rules 18.02(1) provides as follows:18.02 (1) A document or written statement or an audio or visual record that has been served, at least 30 days before the trial date, on all parties who were served with the notice of trial, shall be received in evidence, unless the trial judge orders otherwise.
[34] As this court held in Parkkari v. Lakehead Aluminum Ltd., 2014 ONSC 4167, 324 O.A.C. 8 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 19-21, the rule is permissive, not exclusionary, and “[w]hile r.18.02 expressly mandates the admission of documents that fall within its terms, it does not require the exclusion of documents that do not fall within its terms ….” . 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 applies CJA s.27 ['Small Claims Court - Evidence']:[100] There was evidence that, although UCDA is an association for used car dealers, that they receive information from CBSA. Mr. Scott explained that the UCDA is interested in this public record of when goods are entering or exiting the country and hence UCDA received it from CBSA.
[101] When asked in cross-examination how he could say that the report is reliable, the court suggested that Mr. Scott had training but Mr. Scott was still uncertain regarding reliability.
[102] The form indicated that it is information contained for reference purposes only and it does not assume liability for errors and omission in the data made available through this report.
[103] With respect to the Carfax report, it was clarified that the registration on Carfax is the day that the person at the licence bureau prints an ownership of the vehicle.
[104] In the past two years, there was a new tool created by UCDA to track these exports.
[105] He did not have a copy of the CBSA report.
[106] It may have been preferable if the trial judge made a ruling on the admissibility of the UCDA report. Nevertheless, I do not find that it was an palpable and overriding error as it can inferred that the court accepted the evidence that the information was generated from the CBSA report as a regular part of business and it was reliable.
[107] Section 27 of the CJA permits the Small Claims Court to be flexible with the rules of evidence.
[108] This ground of appeal fails.
|
