Adjudicative Jurisdiction:

Question: What types of disputes and remedies can Ontario’s Small Claims Court decide?

Answer: In Ontario, Small Claims Court can hear many kinds of civil disputes as long as the remedy sought is payment of money or return of personal property within the court’s monetary limit under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 23(1), and it can decide questions of law and fact that arise in those claims under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 25.   Hall Paralegal Services provides paralegal services in Ontario, helping clients assess whether a claim fits Small Claims Court jurisdiction and prepare the paperwork and process strategy accordingly.

Litigative Subject-Matter Authority

The Small Claims Court is part of the Superior Court of Justice and is designed to handle everyday civil disputes in an accessible way. The law defines what kinds of cases the Court can decide, setting thereby setting its subject-matter jurisdiction.

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 subject-matter jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court is at once narrow and broad. It is narrow in that remedies are confined to the payment of money or the recovery of personal property within the prescribed monetary threshold. Yet it is broad in that, within those limits, the Court may adjudicate a wide variety of legal disputes across numerous causes of action. This structure reflects a deliberate legislative balance: to create a simplified and efficient forum that remains cost-effective and accessible to the public. In this way, the Small Claims Court plays an essential role in promoting access to justice while safeguarding the rule of law.