Yes No Share to Facebook
Judicial Decision Reasons
The Requirement of an Explanation of the What and Why
Last Updated: July 04 2026
Question: Do small claims court judges in Ontario have to explain the reasons for their decision?
Answer: In Ontario, a Small Claims Court judge (and judges in any court) must provide reasons that explain what was decided and why, so the parties can understand the legal basis for the outcome and so an appeal court can meaningfully review it; even though Small Claims Court reasons may be shorter due to the court’s informal, high-volume process, the reasons must still be sufficiently clear to permit judicial review on appeal, as reflected in authorities like Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp., 2015 ONCA 520 and Doerr v. Sterling Paralegal, 2014 ONSC 2335. If you are dealing with a Small Claims decision and need help interpreting the reasons or assessing next steps for review in Ontario, Paralegal at Civil Litigations Paralegal Services can help you prepare a practical plan and draft materials for your civil matter; call (416) 229-1479 to get started.
Does a Small Claims Court Judge Need to Provide a Reasoning For a Decision?
Small Claims Court Decisions, Like Decisions In Other Courts, Must Be Explained By the Judge Providing the Reasoning For the Decision.
Understanding the Requirement of Reasons Within Judicial Decisions Including Small Claims Court Cases
A judge of any court, even the Small Claims court, is required to provide an explanation that explains what decision is made and why the decision is made. Judicial reasons ensure that the parties to the litigation understand the legal basis for the decisions made as well as enable a review, if necessary, within the process of an Appeal.
The Law
The duty of a judge, including a Small Claims Court judge, to provide quality reasons for a judicial decision was well stated in Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, wherein it was specifically said:
[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. Although an explanation in a Small Claims Court case may be provided without the level of details expected in a higher court case, the reasons must be adequate for review upon an Appeal.
NOTE: A significant quantity of inquiries pertaining to “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicates a requirement for prompt and competent legal assistance, rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation issues. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise form the core of that function. Civil Litigations Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed mandate/scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at attaining effective and advantageous resolutions for clients.
