Un-Pleaded Issues at Trial: Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Ontario Small Claims Court]] | [[Category:Ontario Small Claims Court]] | ||
[[Category:Pleadings]] | |||
[[Category:Hearing Process (LTB)]] | |||
== | {{Citation: | ||
*In my view the fundamental flaw with the moving party’s position is that he effectively asks the court to hold the plaintiff’s claim to the standards which apply under the | | categories = [Pleadings], [Hearing Process (LTB)] | ||
| shortlink = https://rvt.link/go | |||
}} | |||
==Thomas v MDG Newmarket Inc., 2017 CanLII 67311 (ON SCSM)<ref name="Thomas"/>== | |||
*In my view the fundamental flaw with the moving party’s position is that he effectively asks the court to hold the plaintiff’s claim to the standards which apply under the <i>Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194</i><ref name="ROCP"/>. It is well-established that in Small Claims Court, given the incidence of self-represented parties, the rules of pleading are to be applied flexibly - <b><u>even to the point that absent real prejudice, unpleaded issues may be decided at trial</b></u>: <i>936464 Ontario Ltd. v. Mungo Bear Ltd. (2003), 2003 CanLII 72356 (ON SCDC), 74 O.R. (3d) 45 (Div. Ct.)</i><ref name=" Mungo Bear"/>. That being so, applying the law of pleadings from the Superior Court of Justice to pleadings motions in this court is problematic at best. | |||
<ref name="Thomas">Thomas v MDG Newmarket Inc., 2017 CanLII 67311 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/h6mff>, retrieved on 2025-11-14</ref> | |||
<ref name="ROCP">Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, <https://canlii.ca/t/56lkp> retrieved on 2025-11-14</ref> | |||
<ref name=" Mungo Bear">936464 Ontario Ltd. v. Mungo Bear Ltd., 2003 CanLII 72356 (ON SCDC), <https://canlii.ca/t/g14js>, retrieved on 2025-11-14</ref> | |||
==References== | |||
Latest revision as of 16:23, 14 November 2025
| 🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2025-11-17 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 74 |
| Page Categories: | [Pleadings], [Hearing Process (LTB)] |
| Citation: | Un-Pleaded Issues at Trial, CLNP 74, <https://rvt.link/go>, retrieved on 2025-11-17 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2025/11/14 |
Thomas v MDG Newmarket Inc., 2017 CanLII 67311 (ON SCSM)[1]
- In my view the fundamental flaw with the moving party’s position is that he effectively asks the court to hold the plaintiff’s claim to the standards which apply under the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194[2]. It is well-established that in Small Claims Court, given the incidence of self-represented parties, the rules of pleading are to be applied flexibly - even to the point that absent real prejudice, unpleaded issues may be decided at trial: 936464 Ontario Ltd. v. Mungo Bear Ltd. (2003), 2003 CanLII 72356 (ON SCDC), 74 O.R. (3d) 45 (Div. Ct.)[3]. That being so, applying the law of pleadings from the Superior Court of Justice to pleadings motions in this court is problematic at best.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Thomas v MDG Newmarket Inc., 2017 CanLII 67311 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/h6mff>, retrieved on 2025-11-14
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, <https://canlii.ca/t/56lkp> retrieved on 2025-11-14
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 936464 Ontario Ltd. v. Mungo Bear Ltd., 2003 CanLII 72356 (ON SCDC), <https://canlii.ca/t/g14js>, retrieved on 2025-11-14
