Yes No Share to Facebook
Jointly Brought Claims: a Husband and Wife Each Suing at the Small Claims Court Limit
Question: Can multiple plaintiffs claim more than $35,000 in Small Claims Court?
Answer: Yes, when two or more plaintiffs jointly own property, each can claim up to $35,000, allowing for a potential total claim of $70,000 in a single lawsuit. This ensures fair access to justice for those affected by a common issue.
Restriction Involving Monetary Jurisdiction
The Small Claims Court serves as an accessible forum designed to handle disputes involving monetary amounts up to a maximum limit of thirty-five thousand ($35,000.00) dollars per Plaintiff; however, in circumstances where damage is caused to property that is jointly owned, such as a house owned by a husband and wife, both owners can each claim up to the maximum amount; and accordingly, a lawsuit in the Small Claims Court can involve a combined total of seventy thousand ($70,000.00) dollars against the defendant. For example, where a contractor performs defective workmanship within a household renovation project, the contractor may face a Small Claims Court lawsuit for a $70,000 sum - being two claims raised within the same lawsuit where the husband and wife as owners of the home sue together as joint Plaintiffs.
The Law
The potential of joint Plaintiffs each bringing claims involving the same property often raises confusion within the Defendant. The Defendant in such a circumstances, often perceives, inaccurately so, that the maximum limit within a Small Claims Court lawsuit is $35,000; however, instead of $35,000 being the limit per lawsuit, the $35,000 is the limit per Plaintiff. The judicial reasoning for permitting multiple Plaintiffs to bring individual claims jointly within the same lawsuit, even with each claiming at the maximum limit of the Small Claims Court, was provided within various cases including Lock v. Waterloo (Regional Municipality), 2011 CarswellOnt 15974, as well as Kent v. Conquest Vacations, 2005 CanLII 2321, wherein each case it was said:
13 The same point has been addressed under the Simplified Procedure provided in Rule 76 of the Rules of the Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. There is a monetary limit for the mandatory application of that procedure and it has been held that multiple plaintiffs each claiming within the monetary limit can be properly joined in one claim: Baker v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 729 (Ont. Gen. Div.), leave to appeal denied 112 O.A.C. 277 (Ont. Div. Ct.). It has also been held that Rule 76 should be liberally interpreted to carry out its policy of containing the cost of litigating the smaller claims to which it applies: Lillie v. Bisson (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 94 (Ont. C.A.). In my view both of those principles are equally true of proceedings in the Small Claims Court.
14 To hold otherwise would be to require that the case at bar be divided into two actions involving virtually identical allegations of fact and law. I see no useful purpose in requiring that multiplicity of proceedings, nor any proper basis to do so under the law of joinder or the law defining this court's jurisdiction.
15 Section 23(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act gives this court jurisdiction "in any action for the payment of money where the amount claimed does not exceed the prescribed amount..." "Action" is defined under s. 1(1) of the Act only as including proceedings, other than applications, commenced by a not-exhaustive list of originating documents. The list does not refer to the Small Claims Court and does not mention the Plaintiff's Claim which, along with the Defendant's Claim, is the originating document in this court.
16 Section 1(1) of O.Reg. 626/00 sets the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, stating that "The maximum amount of a claim in the Small Claims Court is $25,000." That differs from s. 23(1) by referring to a "claim" in this court rather than an "action" in this court. As was found in Action Auto Leasing & Gallery Inc. v. Robillard (2011), 106 O.R. (3d) 281 (Ont. Div. Ct.), dealing with the minimum appealable amount, there is a material inconsistency between the language of the Act and the language of the corresponding regulation.
17 The Courts of Justice Act and its regulations should be interpreted liberally and as a coherent package. In my view, properly interpreted, the effect of the applicable provisions is that plaintiffs suing together in one action in the Small Claims Court may properly each claim damages up to the maximum monetary jurisdiction of the court.
8 While the damages of the individual parties arise out of a common transaction, they need not be asserted in a single action. Rule 5 of the Rules of the Superior Court, although not directly applicable to the Small Claims Court, is instructive. It provides that two or more plaintiffs, if represented by the same solicitor, “may” join as the plaintiffs in the same proceeding where their claims arise out of the same transaction. The joinder is voluntary.
Other cases on the same point include:
- Bleeks, et al v. Keenan, et al, 2014 CanLII 90436;
- McCruden v Nead, 2018 CanLII 123230
Conclusion
Although the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court limits claims to a $35,000 sum, the limit is on a per claim basis rather than on a lawsuit, basis. Accordingly, where a lawsuit involves claims brought by more than one Plaintiff, the lawsuit may involve total sums that exceed the $35,000 limit that applicable to each Plaintiff. This circumstance most often arises where a husband and wife are jointly affected by the same wrongdoing; and in such a circumstance, the husband and wife can each sue in the Small Claims Court at the $35,000 limit for a collective $70,000 total.
