Your Client’s Simplified Procedure claim is for $50,000.00 or Less – Now What?

As of October 1, 2025, the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court increased from $35,000.00 to $50,000.00. This change has forced many Superior Court Plaintiffs to assess whether a Judge may realistically award them damages of $50,000.00 or less, and how they should proceed if their claim now falls within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

There are many Plaintiffs and Defendants to Simplified Procedure claims of $50,000.00 or less who, as of October 1, 2025, had already incurred the cost of compiling their Affidavit of Documents and participating in Examination for Discovery. Those steps are not required under the Small Claims Court procedure, and the limited procedural steps in a Small Claims action are reflected by the cap imposed on costs pursuant to the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

The default cost entitlement of the successful party in a Small Claims action is 15% of the damages claimed (or, in some cases, the damages awarded). While the Small Claims Court has discretion to award increased costs in certain circumstances, including through the consideration of any Offers to Settle made before trial, even an increased cost award is not always sufficient to reimburse the legal fees incurred in a Small Claims Court trial. The reality of cost recovery is even more dire for parties to a claim that was initially advanced through Simplified Procedure but now falls within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

If a Plaintiff claiming damages for $50,000.00 must now transfer their action to the Small Claims Court, their default cost recovery after that transfer will be limited to $7,500.00. This is true regardless of the procedural steps they already took under Simplified Procedure. Conversely, if that Plaintiff chooses not to transfer their claim to the Small Claims Court and is successful at trial, the Court may elect not to award any costs whatsoever.  Evidently, an insufficient cost award of $7,500.00 is better than nothing at all.

A party to a Superior Court claim that is now within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court may be wondering: Do I have to transfer to Small Claims Court jurisdiction if my claim is ready for trial? Will the Small Claims Court consider the change in jurisdiction and increase my cost award? Will the Court allow me to continue my claim in Simplified Procedure without penalty? What happens if I object to a request to transfer the matter to the Small Claims Court?

Fortunately, this is not the first time that the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court has increased. As such, there is some guidance in the available case law on how the Court will treat a claim that was commenced in the correct jurisdiction but now falls within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. The available case law indicates that the Superior Court’s approach to costs in such a case will be highly dependent on the surrounding context. Where the Superior Court awards damages within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the denial of the Plaintiff’s costs is not automatic. The Court has discretion on how to appropriately deal with the issue of costs. The Court must only exercise this discretion in ‘exceptional circumstances’, as stated in Toronto Dominion Bank v. Thind[1]:

“[I]f the plaintiff, as here, has made a deliberate decision to bring the proceedings in the Superior Court when it is clear that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction, then, save in exceptional circumstances, the plaintiff should recover no costs.”

The Superior Court has generally maintained that strict adherence to a denial of costs for damages within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court is necessary, as the Superior Court of Justice is already overburdened with cases.[2] In exercising its discretion to award a Plaintiff their costs, the Court must assess the “reasonableness” of the Plaintiff’s decision to proceed by Simplified Procedure.[3] Reasonableness can stem from the complexity of the issues and whether the Plaintiff realistically assessed their position on liability and damages.[4] Where the parties have conducted several procedural steps in Simplified Procedure, such as exchanging Affidavit of Documents and conducting Examination for Discovery, it will likely be more reasonable for a Plaintiff to decide to remain in the jurisdiction of Simplified Procedure.

The cost endorsement of Justice McIsaac in Blow v. Brethet[5], touches on the very issue of a Plaintiff’s failure to transfer their claim to the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court after an increase in the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

In Blow, the Court awarded the Plaintiff $21,218.72 in damages, inclusive of pre-judgment interest. The trial took place four months after the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court increased to $25,000.00. Before the effective date of the increase in monetary jurisdiction, the parties had already exchanged their Affidavit of Documents and conducted Examination for Discovery. Justice McIsaac found that the Plaintiff ought to have transferred their claim to Small Claims Court, as it was obvious that their realistic damages were below $25,000.00.

At trial, the Plaintiff in Blow sought a cost award of $64,000.00. Justice McIsaac only awarded the Plaintiff $6,000.00 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST:

The defendants have asked that I exercise my discretion to award no costs to the plaintiff pursuant to rule 57.05(1) in light of this limited success. I am not prepared to make such a draconian disposition given the fact this trial lasted three days. However, given the need to arrive at a “fair and reasonable” disposition in light of the factors catalogued in rule 57.01(1), in particular, the amount recovered by the plaintiff, I award him costs in the fixed amount of $6,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Based on the decision in Blow¸ a Plaintiff proceeding in Simplified Procedure shortly after a change to the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction may be given some deference by the Court. However, they can ultimately expect that they will not recover a cost award that is sufficient to reimburse them for the costs that they had already incurred before the change to monetary jurisdiction.

About the Author

Shannon Sweeney is a litigation associate at Soloway Wright LLP. In her practice, Shannon represents both Plaintiffs and Defendants in an array of different civil matters, with a focus on labour and employment cases and commercial litigation.

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.