|
Small Claims Court - Nature of the Court. 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….”
|
