Yes No Share to Facebook
Judicial Decision Reasons
The Requirement of an Explanation of the What and Why
Last Updated: August 26 2026
Question: Do I get an explanation for a Small Claims Court decision in Ontario, even if I’m unhappy with the outcome?
Answer: Civil Litigations Paralegal Services can help you understand when a Small Claims Court judge must give reasons for a decision in Ontario. Court decisions, including Small Claims Court decisions, must include enough reasoning to explain what was decided and why, so the decision can be meaningfully reviewed on appeal; the Small Claims Court is mandated by Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, and Ontario cases such as Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, confirm the reasons must be sufficiently clear for judicial review even though they may be briefer than higher-court decisions. If you need help assessing what was decided, whether the reasons are sufficient, and what your next steps are, call (416) 229-1479.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Is a Small Claims Court Judge Required to Provide An Explanation For a Decision?
Court Decisions, Even Small Claims Court Decisions, Must be Explained With the Reasoning For the Decision Provided By the Judge.
Understanding the Requirement of Reasons Within Judicial Decisions Including Small Claims Court Cases
The decisions that are made by a judge, including the decisions made in a Small Claims Court case, are required to include explanations of the reasoning for the decision. The requirement to provide reasons is necessary to the judicial process whereas, if necessary, the reasons may be reviewed for errors, among other concerns, at a subsequent Appeal.
The Law
A Small Claims Court judge, likely judges within other courts, is required to provide and explanation for a decision as per, among other cases, Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, which stated:
[28] In assessing the sufficiency of the Deputy Judge’s Reasons, I acknowledge the tremendous volume of matters in the Small Claims Court as well as the informal nature of the Small Claims Court. As stated in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520, 389 DLR (4th) 711, at paras. 34 and 35:
[34] The Small Claims Court is mandated under s. 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, to “hear and determine in a summary way all questions of law and fact and may make such order as is considered just and agreeable to good conscience.” The Small Claims Court plays a vital role in the administration of justice in the province by ensuring meaningful and cost effective access to justice for cases involving relatively modest claims for damages. In order to meet its mandate, the Small Claims Court’s process and procedures are designed to ensure that it can handle a large volume of cases in an efficient and economical manner.
[35] Reasons from the Small Claims Court must be sufficiently clear to permit judicial review on appeal. They must explain to the litigants what has been decided and why: Doerr v. Sterling Paralegal, 2014 ONSC 2335, at paras. 17-19. However, appellate consideration of Small Claims Court reasons must recognize the informal nature of that court, as well as the volume of cases it handles and its statutory mandate to deal with these cases efficiently. In short, in assessing the adequacy of the reasons, context matters: Massoudinia v. Volfson, 2013 ONCA 29, at para. 9. Just as oral reasons will not necessarily be as detailed as written reasons, reasons from the Small Claims Court will not always be as thorough as those in Superior Court decisions. Failing to take the Small Claims Court context into account only serves to restrict access to justice by unnecessarily imparting formality and delay into a legal process that is designed to be informal and efficient.
[29] Or, in other words, to permit meaningful appellate review, the reasons must adequately express “what” was decided and “why” it was decided, see: Maple Ridge, at para. 24; Law Society of Upper Canada v. Neinstein, 2010 ONCA 193, at para. 61.
[30] If the reasons are not sufficiently detailed to understand “the what” and “the why” for the decision under review, then this is an error in law and the standard of review is correctness, see Maple Ridge, at para 22; Barbieri v. Mastronardi, 2014 ONCA 416, at para. 22.
Conclusion
A judge for a case in the Small Claims Court is required to provide reasons for a decision. While the explanation of reasons in a Small Claims Court case may be brief compared to explanations expected from higher courts, the explanation must be sufficient to enable review by an Appeal court.
NOTE: A considerable assortment of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate an urgent requirement for competent legal assistance rather than a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and possess the authority to represent clients in specific litigation contexts. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this position. Civil Litigations Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, emphasising strategic positioning, evidentiary groundwork, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
