Yes No Share to Facebook
Small Claims Court Limit
Involves Net From Set-Off Upon Sum Assessed
Last Updated: August 28 2026
Question: In Ontario Small Claims Court, do I calculate a set-off from the $35,000 award limit or from the assessed amount when my claim is assessed above the limit?
Answer: Vescio Legal Services can help you understand how set-offs work in Ontario Small Claims Court: the $35,000 limit applies to the net judgment the court may award, not to the amount the court may assess, and where a set-off is involved the set-off is calculated from the assessed amount rather than from the court’s award jurisdiction limit, as reflected in 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483 (at paras. 17-18) where the court focused on the net figure within jurisdiction. If you want a quick review of your counterclaim and set-off math, call (416) 400-8255 for guidance and a FREE 1/4 hour consultation.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Is the Set-Off Amount In a Small Claims Court Case Calculated From the Capped Court Limit?
If the Small Claims Court Assesses a Sum That Is Higher Than the Maximum Award Amount Allowed, the Assessed Amount Is the Basis For Reduction By Any Set-Off; Nevertheless, the Total Amount Granted Must Be Within the Court Award Limit.
Understanding the Small Claims Court Jurisdiction to Award Judgment As Net Set-Off Despite An Above Limit Assessment
The maximum amount that can be awarded as a Judgment in the Small Claims Court is $35,000, excluding legal expenses or interest. This limit is distinct from the amount that may be assessed. 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.
Within the 2146100 case, the Judge assessed slightly more than $42,000 on a counterclaim as brought against the Plaintiff. The Judge then went on to assess slightly more than $21,000 as due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. When determining the net Judgment award due, the Judge used the $42,000 assessed amount and applied the $21,000 set-off amount. Subsequently, upon Appeal, it was argued that the set-off should be calculated from the court jurisdiction limit rather than the assessed amount. The Divisional Court disagreed with the argument and upheld the Judgment from Trial.
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 quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” usually signify a demand for prompt and effective legal support rather than an exact job title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are monitored by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in certain litigation matters. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural knowledge are pivotal to that function. Vescio Legal Services offers legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at achieving swift and beneficial outcomes for clients.