Autometric Autobody Inc. v. High Performance Coatings Inc., (2014) 328 O.A.C. 197 (DC)

• Judge: Hambly, D. Brown and Gilmore, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: October 20, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2014), 328 O.A.C. 197 (DC);2014 ONSC 6073

Autometric v. High Performance (2014), 328 O.A.C. 197 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.033

Autometric Autobody Inc. (plaintiff/respondent) v. High Performance Coatings Inc. (defendant/appellant)

(DC-13-0062-00; 2014 ONSC 6073)

Indexed As: Autometric Autobody Inc. v. High Performance Coatings Inc.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Hambly, D. Brown and Gilmore, JJ.

October 20, 2014.

Summary:

High Performance Coatings Inc. (HPC) commenced a small claims action against Autometric Autobody Inc., seeking liquidated damages in the amount of $22,927.70 for goods sold and delivered. Autometric filed a counterclaim seeking damages of $25,000, alleging that HPC had agreed, in May 2009, to remove and sell certain Autometric equipment and to pay Autometric the sale proceeds. Autometric alleged that HPC failed to pay it the sale proceeds or return the removed equipment. Autometric also alleged that it had lost revenue as a result of defective paint that it had purchased from HPC. Two weeks before the small claims trial, Autometric commenced an action against HPC in the Superior Court, seeking damages of $45,783.10 for the breach of the May 2009 agreement and the supply of defective paint. Autometric moved for leave to amend its small claims counterclaim to increase the damages claimed to $45,783.10, and for leave to transfer the counterclaim to the Superior Court. The motion judge granted the motion, ordering both HPC's claim and the counterclaim to be transferred to the Superior Court and tried together with Autometric's Superior Court action. HPC appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal. HPC's small claims action and the counterclaim were to continue in the Small Claims Court. No relief was ordered with respect to Autometric's Superior Court action.

Courts - Topic 7551

Provincial courts - Ontario - Small Claims Court - Jurisdiction - Transfer of action - [See Practice - Topic 9765] .

Practice - Topic 9765

Small claims - Transfers out of Small Claims Court - High Performance Coatings (HPC) commenced a small claims action against Autometric Autobody, seeking damages for goods sold and delivered - Autometric counterclaimed, seeking damages of $25,000 - It alleged that HPC failed to pay it the sale proceeds or return Autometric equipment that HPC had agreed to remove and sell in May 2009 - Autometric also alleged that it had lost revenue as a result of defective paint that it had purchased from HPC - Two weeks before the small claims trial, Autometric commenced an action against HPC in the Superior Court, seeking damages of $45,783.10 for the breach of the May 2009 agreement and the supply of defective paint - A motion judge granted Autometric's motion for leave to amend its counterclaim to increase the damages claimed to $45,783.10, and for leave to transfer the counterclaim to the Superior Court - The motion judge ordered both HPC's claim and the counterclaim to be transferred to the Superior Court and tried together with Autometric's Superior Court action - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed HPC's appeal and set aside the motion judge's order - The motion judge erred by focusing only on whether the transfer of the small claims action would prejudice HPC - She should have asked whether the issues raised in the small claims action and counterclaim were capable of being justly and fairly resolved by the procedures available in the Small Claims Court - Had the proper inquiry been made, it was clear from the pleadings that the issues were more than capable of being justly and fairly resolved by small claims procedures.

Cases Noticed:

Vigna v. Toronto Stock Exchange et al. (1998), 115 O.A.C. 393 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 2].

Vista Sudbury Hotel Inc. v. Double T Earth Moving Ltd., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 3454; 2011 ONSC 3454, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 4].

Counsel:

No one appearing for the respondent;

G. Barosan, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard at Brampton, Ontario, on October 20, 2014, before Hambly, D. Brown and Gilmore, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following judgment was delivered for the court by D. Brown, J., on the same date.