Yes No Share to Facebook
Small Claims Court Limit
Involves Net From Set-Off Upon Sum Assessed
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: In a Small Claims Court case, is the set-off amount calculated from the capped court limit or from the assessed amounts?
Answer: In Vagans Legal Small Claims Court matters, the $35,000 monetary limit is about the net judgment the court awards, not the amount it may assess on each claim and counterclaim. Where a set-off applies, the set-off is calculated from the assessed amounts (the starting totals in the pleadings) rather than being taken from the court’s jurisdiction limit, as reflected in 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483. If you want help modelling how your net judgment and set-off may be calculated for a claim exceeding the limit, call (416) 473-8472 to discuss your situation with a paralegal.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
If a Set-Off Applies In a Small Claims Court Case, Is the Set-Off Amount Based Upon the Court Limit As a the Maximum Starting Point?
If a Sum Is Assessed That Exceeds the Maximum Amount Allowed By the Small Claims Court, Any Set-Off Will Be taken From the Assessed Amount Rather Than Court Award Limit; However, the Total Amount Awarded Must Remain Within the Court Award Limit.
Understanding the Small Claims Court Jurisdiction to Award Judgment As Net Set-Off Despite An Above Limit Assessment
In the Small Claims Court, a limit of $35,000, exclusive of legal costs and interest, currently applies; however, this limit applies to the amount that may be awarded as a Judgment rather than a limit upon the sums that may be assessed by the Small Claims Court. Furthermore, in cases where a set-off amount applies, the set-off is calculated from the assessed amount rather than from the award limit.
The Law
The 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483, case confirms the point that the Small Claims Court may assess any sum of damages and may apply from that assessed sum, rather than apply from the monetary jurisdiction cap, an applicable set-off sum so long as the a net Judgment award remains within the court award limit. This basis for applying a set-off was confirmed whereas 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 also assessed a sum just over $21,000 on the Plaintiff's Claim as owed by the Defendant. 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 number of web searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt and effective legal assistance, rather than focusing on a particular title. In Ontario, paralegals who hold a licence are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers, granting them the authority to represent clients in specified litigation situations. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are integral to this position. Vagans Legal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, emphasising strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
