Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
INSPECTORSHIP not available from SMALL CLAIMS COURT- Davidson v Carleton CC #73 2019/03/24 14:43  
Not legal advice :

An S.R.L. self represented Ottawa condo owner has lost an attempt to appeal ( to a civil judge as Divisional Court function ) from an Interlocutory Order issued by a Small Claims Court.

The complainant owner's choices ultimately left his condo beefs UNADDRESSED as to their merits here and in the summary procedure lower court below. Some may or not have been valid about record withholding or more.

( The rejection briefly speculates whether or not CAT Ontario's Tribunal would alternatively still be available for alleged records withholdings that may be stale-dated and/or already through a litigation process. )

Bigger, he will now suck up some portion of the condo corporation's legal defence costs on the appeal dismissed here.

If ever he needed legal or paralegal professional help, respectfully this end game - about costs - is one such time. Should be interesting to see the cost award outcome if the adversaries cannot informally reach a settlement without a judicial resolution.

( Besides alleging illegal records withholding, the owner has blogged elsewhere - and declared at one or more Owners Meetings - that audits were being prepared by allegedly unqualified individuals. And that what he claims were UNLAWFUL FINES, were being levied. These are unproven allegations. Anyway this is the background to his records requests & attempts to get into place a form of condo INSPECTORSHIP albeit one he wanted paid by the non-defendant PMC management company ! )

What's handy is that the rejection on appeal clarifies the jurisdictional limits of Ontario's Small Claims Courts & appeals therefrom.

Ontario's Small Claims Courts are a division of Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Deputy Judges are provincial appointees as opposed to Federal. Check out

( The self-represented owner may simply not have understood that Small Claims lacks jurisdiction to order Inspectorships under the Ontario Condominium Act 1998's section 130.

He was charitably given 45 days to stay in queue and apply to transfer all the beefs - including those beyond Small Claims jurisdiction - to the empowered mainstream jurisdiction above.

One can see arguably that the Interlocutory Order opened a handy door to skating onside what the judge construed was the real remedy sought by the complainant.

But the plaintiff owner would have been stepping from summary procedure warfare into the more expensive realm of formal Civil Procedure Rules best served by hiring a professional. . . .

Unfortunately he let the deadline lapse and simply filed a D.I.Y. appeal of the Interlocutory Order with its benefits but exposure to higher costs & complexity. )

This latest Endorsement cites that "Declaratory" remedies - unlike simple liquidable loss claims or debts not above $ 25 K - are legislated BEYOND the jurisdiction of the Small Claims division. ( see excerpts below )

Ironically the provincially appointed Deputy Judges - sometimes part time lawyers - often get things VERY right and for the reasons upheld & restored ultimately by appellate courts.

( From time to time "upper tier" civil judges earning a multiple of the Premier's salary, make bizarre messes.

As in 3 of 5 Wychwood Park "Trust" ( owners association )'s judicial outcomes to collect voodoo fees against offsite neighbours, thankfully concluded in 2016 by Ontario's Court of Appeal ONCA. ONCA there restored a correct & articulate Small Claims decision for the off-siters, that had been next outrageously ripped apart by a Divisional Court ruling. The Divisional ruling had been shockingly at odds with more than 130 years of Building Scheme jurisprudence and with Supreme Court of Canada rulings ! ! ? Smarter than Canada's Supreme Court & the House of Lords when applying English-derived Building Scheme law ? ? )

Davidson v. Carleton C.C. # 73 (2019) ONSC 1818 issued Feb 21/19

xcrpt " . . . [10] An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a final order of the Small Claims Court in an action for the payment of money in excess of the prescribed amount, excluding costs: see s. 31(a) of the CJA.

[11] These appeals are heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court (CJA, s. 21(2)(b)).

[12] The “prescribed amount” is presently $2,500 (Small Claims Court Jurisdiction and Appeal Limit, O. Reg. 626/00, s. 2, as amended by O. Reg. 317/11.

[13] To determine whether the Divisional Court has jurisdiction over the merits of an appeal, one must ask if the order is a final order, and if the amount claimed in the action exceeds $2,500.

[14] The Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Small Claims Court: see Grainger v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (2009), 2009 CanLII 34987 (ON SC), 96 O.R. (3d) 711 (S.C.J.).

[15] Section 97 of the CJA ( Courts of Justice Act RSO 1990 ) states that the Small Claims Court is excluded from the power to make binding declarations of right, whether or not any consequential relief is or could be claimed.

[16] Pursuant to s. 134(3) of the CJA, on a motion, a court to which an appeal is taken may, in a proper case, quash the appeal. . ." unquote
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster