Last Updated: August 23 2026
In a Small Claims Court case, is the set-off amount calculated from the $35,000 court limit or from the assessed amount in the claim?
DK Legal Practice can help you understand how set-off works when the court assesses amounts over $35,000 in Ontario’s Small Claims Court. In general, the $35,000 monetary jurisdiction limit applies to the net judgment the court awards, not to the assessed value used to calculate set-off. Where a set-off applies, the set-off is calculated from the assessed amount (for the counterclaim) rather than from the $35,000 limit, as reflected in 2146100 Ontario Ltd. v. 2052750 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONSC 2483. If you want, call (416) 906-6663 to review your claim and counterclaim numbers so your net award stays within the court limit.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Does the Set-Off Amount in a Small Claims Court Case Take the Court Limit as the Maximum Possible Starting Amount?
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.
Note: Please contact DK Legal Practice by phone at: (416) 906-6663 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
Understanding the Small Claims Court Jurisdiction to Award Judgment As Net Set-Off Despite An Above Limit Assessment
In the Small Claims Court, the amount that can be awarded as a Judgment is limited to $35,000, excluding legal costs or interest. This limit is separate from the amount that may be assessed. 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. In determining the net award due upon the Judgment, the Judge subtracted the $21,000 as a set-off from the $42,000 assessment rather than from $25,000 limit (at that time). Subsequently on Appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the manner in which the Judgment was calculated by dismissing the Appeal.
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 large volume of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a pressing need for effective legal support rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specified litigation cases. Key components of their role include advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise. DK Legal Practice provides legal representation within its licensed scope, focusing on strategic alignment, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing swift and positive outcomes for clients.
