Yes No Share to Facebook
Judicial Decision Reasons
The Requirement of an Explanation of the What and Why
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: In Ontario Small Claims Court, is a judge required to give reasons explaining the decision?
Answer: Yes. In Ontario, a Small Claims Court judge must provide reasons that explain what was decided and why, so the parties understand the reasoning and there is a meaningful basis for any appeal or judicial review; courts recognize that Small Claims reasons may be shorter due to the informal, high-volume process, but they must still be sufficiently clear, as reflected in cases like Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735 and Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520. If you are dealing with a Small Claims decision and need help assessing whether the reasons were sufficient or what to do next, Legacy Legal Services supports legal professionals and clients across Ontario, call (226) 246-3825 for guidance.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Is a Small Claims Court Judge Required to Provide An Explanation For a Decision?
Judicial Decisions, Even In the Small Claims Court, Must Contain Reasons For the Decision.
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 mandate is known as the duty to provide reasons and is necessary to ensure that the parties to a dispute understand the reasoning for a decision as well as to ensure a review, if necessary, upon 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. While the reasons may be expressed with less detail than a case in the higher court, the reasons must be sufficient for a review by an Appeal court if such situation were to occur.
NOTE: A considerable amount of searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate a pressing demand for capable legal assistance rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are under the regulation of the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specified litigation cases. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedure are pivotal to that function. Legacy Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, preparation of evidence, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and beneficial outcomes for clients.
