I would like some help determining the facts and issues of the case below in order to prepare a case brief.

1 The plaintiff seeks damages against her former spouse representing one-half of the balance of a Visa credit card which she paid off in June 2008 after their separation and divorce. The claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, for the following reasons. 2 Apparently the credit card in question was held in the names of both parties jointly. They were involved in a family law proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice (Kitchener Court File No. FS-24-07) which resulted in a final order dated May 29, 2007. That order granted a divorce and addressed child custody and support. Neither party elected to assert any property claim in that proceeding. 3 The plaintiff has elected to raise one single property issue in this Small Claims Court action. The Plaintiff's Claim was issued about a year after final disposition of the family law proceeding, on July 8, 2008. The defendant apparently resides in Pickering. He has failed to defend this proceeding, which, if it were properly before the Small Claims Court, ought to have been brought in the Whitby Small Claims Court. 4 Generally, all disputes between the same parties arising from a single set of circumstances must be determined Page 2 of 2 Mackenzie v. Asselin, [2009] O.J. No. 355 in one proceeding. Our law discourages multiplicity of proceedings: see Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 138. In the normal course, a property claim between these parties could and should have been included within the proceeding which was determined on May 29, 2007. 5 I reviewed the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court over matters arising from family law disputes, in McCrone v. McCrone, [2008] O.J. No. 3127 (Sm. Cl. Ct.). In that case as in this one, the plaintiff asked for judgment represented half of certain debts accrued by the parties jointly. I found that this court had no jurisdiction over that case because that was a property issue which was required to be determined in a family law proceeding. It was neither practical nor legally permissible to carve out one discrete property issue for determination in this court. In that case a family law proceeding had not yet been launched. In the present case, a family law proceeding was launched and concluded a year before this action was commenced. 6 In this case my conclusion is the same as in McCrone. The plaintiff does not present a discrete claim that is separable from other family law matters. Her request asks the court to address just one part of a larger financial picture which would properly be the subject of a proceeding under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. The Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction under that Act. See also St. Germain v. St. Germain, [2003] O.J. No. 1118 at para. 2-3 (Sm. Cl. Ct.). 7 Stated differently, the plaintiff identifies no common law cause of action in her Plaintiff's Claim. Any contract was between the parties jointly and the bank. There was no separate contract between the parties. The plaintiff's claim must be based on the Family Law Act. This court has no jurisdiction under that Act: see s. 1(1) which does not include the Small Claims Court within the definition of "court" under that Act. In any event, the jurisdiction of the various civil courts reflects the legislature's position that if any property issue under that Act is raised, the complete picture must be addressed and that must be done in the Superior Court of Justice or, in geographic regions in which the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court) operates, in that court. 8 This claim must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, without costs. 9 Because this court lacks jurisdiction to deal with this case, and to avoid misunderstanding, I note that this court can make no determination on whether it is or is not too late for a property claim to be asserted in a properly constituted family law proceeding, in light of the final order dated May 29, 2007 or any applicable limitation period. Issues such as res judicata or settlement might be applicable. No comment is made as to any such issues.