Yes No Share to Facebook
Small Claims Court Limit
Involves Net From Set-Off Upon Sum Assessed
Last Updated: June 27 2025
Question: Does the set-off amount in a Small Claims Court case take the court limit as the maximum possible starting amount?
Answer: No, the set-off amount is calculated from the assessed sum rather than the court award limit, ensuring that the final judgment remains within the allowable maximum of $35,000, providing clarity and fairness in the assessment process.
Does the Maximum Amount That Can Be Awarded In a Small Claims Court Case Become the Maximum Starting Point When Calculating a Set-Off?
In Cases Where A Sum Is Assessed Beyond the Small Claims Court Limit, Any Applicable Set-Off Is Calculated From the Assessed Amount Rather Than From the Court Award Limit; However, the Net Result Must Still Be Within The Court Award Limit.
Understanding the Small Claims Court Jurisdiction to Award Judgment As Net Set-Off Despite An Above Limit Assessment
In the Small Claims Court, a limit of $35,000, exclusive of legal costs and interest, currently applies; however, this limit applies to the amount that may be awarded as a Judgment rather than a limit upon the sums that may be assessed by the Small Claims Court. Additionally, when a set-off amount is applicable, it is calculated from the assessed amount rather than from the cap upon the court award.
The Law
The case of 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483, from when a limit of $25,000 applied to the Small Claims Court, confirms that the Small Claims Court may assess any sum and may apply from that sum, rather than from the court jurisdiction limit, a set-off sum when calculating a net Judgment award. Such principle was explicitly stated where it was said:
[17] In terms of the case at bar, the respondents expressly set out in their defendants' claim that they were owed over $42,000 from the appellants. They limited their ultimate recovery, however, to $25,000. Whether that limit is arrived at through set-off or abandonment of any sum over and above the monetary jurisdiction of the court is immaterial in my view: see Dunbar v. Helicon Properties Ltd., 2006 CanLII 25262 (ON SCDC), [2006] O.J. No. 2992, 2006 CarswellOnt 4580, 213 O.A.C. 296 (Div. Ct.).
[18] The respondents claimed a judgment of $25,000. They were awarded a judgment of $21,538.85. In my view, the process amounted to nothing more than the trial judge starting at $42,633 and making deductions for amounts owed to the plaintiff, to arrive at a net figure within the monetary jurisdiction of the court. This process is logically no different than assessing the value of a contract at $50,000, determining that $30,000 had been paid under the contract, leaving a balance owing of $20,000. There could be no doubt, in those circumstances, that the deputy judge had the jurisdiction to make a finding that the initial value of the contract was an amount in excess of the monetary limit of the court. But at the end of the day, it is the net judgment that matters. Here, the amount awarded was within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court and did not exceed the amount claimed in the defendants' claim.
As occurred in the 2146100 case, the Judge assessed just over $42,000 on a Defendant's Claim as a counterclaim that was brought against the Plaintiff by the Defendant. The Judge then went on to assess slightly more than $21,000 as due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. In determining the net award due upon the Judgment, the Judge subtracted the $21,000 as a set-off from the $42,000 assessment rather than from $25,000 limit (at that time). Subsequently on Appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the manner in which the Judgment was calculated by dismissing the Appeal.
Summary Comment
The Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction limit applies to the amount which the court may award rather than the amount the court may assess. Furthermore, in cases where a set-off calculation is involved, the set-off is taken from the assessed sum rather than from the Small Claims Court limit.
NOTE: A significant volume of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and effective legal assistance rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, the same Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, empowering them to represent clients in specified litigation cases. Essential to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Cross Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, preparation of evidence, and compelling advocacy to secure efficient and beneficial outcomes for clients.