Ontario civil | Appeal
FRESH EVIDENCE
Words “Superior Court of Justice” include Small Claims Court
Appellant appealed dismissal of claim on basis that Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief. Parties entered into conditional sales agreement for financing of respondent’s purchase of vehicle. Respondent defaulted on payment obligations and appellant repossessed vehicle. Vehicle was sold at auction. Appellant brought action seeking deficiency owed by respondent pursuant to terms of conditional sales agreement. Deputy judge determined that Small Claims Court did not have jurisdiction to grant relief under Part V of Personal Property Security Act (Ont.). Appeal allowed. Appellant was permitted to introduce new evidence on appeal. Evidence could not have been adduced at trial. Evidence was relevant and credible. If fresh evidence had been accepted it could have affected result. Deputy judge erred in interpreting s. 67 of Act as exclusive mechanism for dispute resolution for any issues arising under ss. 63 to 66 of Act. Deputy judge erred in interpreting reference to Superior Court of Justice in s. 67 to exclude Small Claims Court as being court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate on compliance with Part V of Act. Section 67 of Act applied to claim for payment for collection of deficiency. Words “Superior Court of Justice” in s. 67 included Small Claims Court. Any applications made pursuant to s. 67 may be brought in Small Claims Court, as long as they complied with monetary limits. Appellant was entitled to judgment.
Chrysler Financial Services Canada Inc. v. Misner (Aug. 10, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Healey J., File No. DV-11-803) Decision at 220 A.C.W.S. (3d) 642 was reversed. 220 A.C.W.S. (3d) 641
Words “Superior Court of Justice” include Small Claims Court
Appellant appealed dismissal of claim on basis that Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief. Parties entered into conditional sales agreement for financing of respondent’s purchase of vehicle. Respondent defaulted on payment obligations and appellant repossessed vehicle. Vehicle was sold at auction. Appellant brought action seeking deficiency owed by respondent pursuant to terms of conditional sales agreement. Deputy judge determined that Small Claims Court did not have jurisdiction to grant relief under Part V of Personal Property Security Act (Ont.). Appeal allowed. Appellant was permitted to introduce new evidence on appeal. Evidence could not have been adduced at trial. Evidence was relevant and credible. If fresh evidence had been accepted it could have affected result. Deputy judge erred in interpreting s. 67 of Act as exclusive mechanism for dispute resolution for any issues arising under ss. 63 to 66 of Act. Deputy judge erred in interpreting reference to Superior Court of Justice in s. 67 to exclude Small Claims Court as being court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate on compliance with Part V of Act. Section 67 of Act applied to claim for payment for collection of deficiency. Words “Superior Court of Justice” in s. 67 included Small Claims Court. Any applications made pursuant to s. 67 may be brought in Small Claims Court, as long as they complied with monetary limits. Appellant was entitled to judgment.
Chrysler Financial Services Canada Inc. v. Misner (Aug. 10, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Healey J., File No. DV-11-803) Decision at 220 A.C.W.S. (3d) 642 was reversed. 220 A.C.W.S. (3d) 641
