Ontario Small Claims Costs Estimator

This page performs a ceiling analysis. It applies the statutory percentage to the amount you enter and shows the resulting maximum for ordinary costs other than disbursements. It then lists the disbursements you entered as a separate figure. It never merges the two into a single predicted award, because no defensible arithmetic produces one.

The percentage is applied to the amount claimed, or to the value of the property sought, not to the amount of any judgment. A claimant who claims $20,000 and recovers $6,000 still has the ceiling measured against the $20,000 claimed, while the modest recovery is exactly the kind of fact that pushes an actual award far below the ceiling.

• The 15% ceiling on ordinary costs other than disbursements, calculated on the amount claimed or the value of the property sought.
• A separate disbursement figure built from the amount you enter, kept outside the ceiling.
• An optional exceptional-adjustment scenario built only from an amount you type, shown on its own line and never merged into the other figures.
• Plain flags where an offer to settle or alleged unreasonable conduct means the analysis needs legal review rather than arithmetic.
• A breakdown you can take to a lawyer or paralegal as the starting point for a costs discussion.

• Treating 15% as an entitlement. It is the maximum for ordinary costs, and the full amount is not automatic.
• Adding the ceiling to the disbursements and quoting the sum as an expected award.
• Applying the percentage to the judgment. It is measured on the amount claimed or the value of the property sought.
• Inflating a claim to raise the ceiling. Overclaiming carries its own risks on costs and credibility.
• Assuming service and preparation costs are recovered in full, when Rule 19 ordinarily assesses them at much lower amounts.
• Counting representation time as if it were billed hours recoverable at the ceiling. The court decides the fee within the applicable limits.
• Treating the $500 self-represented amount as a payment for time spent. It compensates inconvenience and expense, at the court's discretion.
• Relying on an offer to settle without legal advice about whether it actually engages costs consequences.

• Read the ceiling as a maximum and nothing more. Do not quote it to the other side as what you expect to be awarded.
• Keep receipts and proof for every disbursement you intend to claim, and be ready to justify each as reasonable.
• Check the current text of s. 29 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 19 before a costs submission.
• Get legal advice about any offer to settle, and about any allegation of unreasonable conduct on either side.
• Test your position against a realistic worst case: partial success, no costs award, and disbursements only partly allowed.
• Prepare a costs outline the court can follow, rather than a single number produced by a calculator.

Fictional teaching examples - not legal authority. Each shows the ceiling arithmetic and then stops, because the award itself is a judicial decision.

Example 1 - a modest claim that succeeds in full. The claim is for $8,000 in unpaid invoices and the plaintiff wins the full amount. The ordinary-costs ceiling is 15% × $8,000 = $1,200. Disbursements are the $108.00 claim-issuance fee and $60.00 of service costs for one person served, so $168.00 sits outside the ceiling. The two figures stay separate. The court may allow ordinary costs anywhere from nothing up to $1,200, and Rule 19 ordinarily assesses preparation at no more than $200.00 and service at no more than $60.00 per person served. Whether any disbursement is allowed, and at what amount, is for the court.

Example 2 - a large claim with a small recovery. The claim is for $35,000 and the judgment is $4,000. The ceiling is still measured on the amount claimed: 15% × $35,000 = $5,250. Nothing about that figure suggests $5,250 is likely. Recovering roughly a ninth of what was claimed is exactly the circumstance in which a court may award far less, award nothing, or consider whether the claim was overstated. Where the defendant made a Rule 14 offer that beat the result, the costs analysis can move against the plaintiff entirely, which is a legal question, not an arithmetic one.

Example 3 - a self-represented defendant who wins. The claim was for $12,000 and is dismissed. If the defendant sought costs, the ordinary-costs ceiling would be 15% × $12,000 = $1,800, but a self-represented party is not claiming a representation fee. Rule 19 allows a discretionary amount of up to $500.00 for inconvenience and expense. On the disbursement side the two numbers are different and should not be confused. The defendant actually paid $152.00: $77.00 to file the Defence and $75 to a process server. The ordinary assessable illustration is $137.00, being the $77.00 filing fee plus the ordinary Rule 19.01(3) limit of $60.00 per person served - and even that is subject to special circumstances and to what the court decides to allow. The realistic conversation is about a discretionary amount within the $500.00 maximum and about those disbursement figures, not about the $1,800 ceiling.

• Write out the ceiling and the disbursements as two separate lines, and never total them.
• Assemble receipts and proof of payment for every disbursement before the costs submission.
• Confirm the current wording of s. 29 and Rule 19, and read the ministry After judgment guidance on how costs are dealt with.
• Take any offer to settle, and any allegation of unreasonable behaviour, to a lawyer or licensed paralegal.
• Prepare a short costs outline the court can follow, showing what was spent and why it was reasonable.

Official sources checked for this page: s. 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, O. Reg. 258/98 (Rules 14 and 19), and the ministry's Guide to Procedures in Small Claims Court - After judgment. Reviewed on 21 August 2026. The worked examples, the ceiling-versus- disbursement separation and the next-step checklist were added at that review; the engine and the statutory percentage were unchanged.

Correction note, 12 September 2026. The combined "modelled total" was removed from the screen, the copied text and the printed output. The ordinary-costs scenario, the entered disbursements and any exceptional adjustment are now shown only as separate figures, and the exceptional amount is labelled as user-entered rather than recoverable or ordered. Copy describing a self-represented-litigant or representation-fee input was corrected, because the form has no such field. The worked examples now use the current fee schedule: the Example 1 disbursements are $108.00 plus $60.00 = $168.00, and Example 3 distinguishes $152.00 actually paid from an ordinary assessable illustration of $137.00. Entered values are now validated, and an invalid entry blocks the figures instead of being treated as zero. The review date above is unchanged. This is an editorial correction, not a certified or legal review.

Legal information reviewed: 31 July 2026. Checked against the official sources listed on this page. Rates, fees and rules change; confirm anything you rely on.