Monetary Jurisdiction (Re: LTB)

See Also

• Jurisdiction (LTB)

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006

207 (1) The Board may, where it otherwise has the jurisdiction, order the payment to any given person of an amount of money up to the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. 2006, c. 17, s. 207 (1).

(2) A person entitled to apply under this Act but whose claim exceeds the Board’s monetary jurisdiction may commence a proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction for an order requiring the payment of that sum and, if such a proceeding is commenced, the court may exercise any powers that the Board could have exercised if the proceeding had been before the Board and within its monetary jurisdiction.

Lock v Waterloo (Regional Municipality)

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.

18 Accordingly, both plaintiffs in this case are limited to claiming damages of $25,000 each rather than $25,000 in total, exclusive of interest and costs, and their claims are amended accordingly

Bleeks v Keenan, 2014 CanLII 90436 (ON SCSM)

Letang v. Cooper [ 1964] All E.R. 1929 (C.A.) ] defines a cause of action as “ a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person”. That definition was cited in Royal Bank of Canada v. Metcalf in [1985] 3 C.P.C. (2nd) 228 (ONT. DIST. COURT), which case went on to say that a cause of action is “a factual situation which entitles one person to recover damages from a Defendant” (paragraph 5). In this case, each Plaintiff had an individual retainer with Defendant Keenan and his firm, and, each of the Plaintiffs paid one-fifth of the amount owing pursuant to the cost award and each suffered an individual amount of damages if they are ultimately found to be successful.

Secondly, the Plaintiffs made a claim based on negligence. In Lock v Waterloo (Regional Municipality) , it was held that each Plaintiff had a separate cause of action arising from the same tort. See also Tope v. Stratford (City) [1994] OJ No.3097.

In Kent v. Conquest Vacations Co. [2005] No. 1311, 138 A. C.W.S. (3rd) 426 it was held that both Plaintiffs, Mr. Kent and Mrs. Kent entered into separate contracts with Conquest Vacations and accordingly had an independent cause of action against Conquest Vacations. That decision was affirmed in KNP Headwear Inc. v. Levinson [2005] OJ No.5438, 2605 OAC 291. In this matter we are dealing with a lawyer/client relationship in which there is a claim for breach of contract, Negligence, misrepresentation etc.

I find that each Plaintiff has a separate contract with the Defendant Keenan and his firm the Defendant Collucci and each Plaintiff may have a separate claim for negligence as well. Therefore, each is entitled to a separate claim in Small Claims Court against the Defendants. Accordingly the Plaintiffs’ claims shall be tried together as directed by the Trial Judge.