Last Updated: August 23 2026
Are Small Claims Court judges required to explain the reasons behind a decision?
Yes. In Ontario, judges including in Small Claims Court must provide reasons that explain what was decided and why, even though those reasons may be shorter given the court’s informal, high-volume process. This duty supports meaningful review on appeal and helps parties understand the basis for the outcome. In Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, the court emphasized that Small Claims Court reasons must be sufficiently clear for appellate review, consistent with the Courts of Justice Act framework and the need for “the what” and “the why”. If you need help assessing whether a Small Claims decision’s reasons were adequate or how to respond, Olson Craig Legal provides lawyer and paralegal support across Ontario; call (226) 886-2001.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Are Small Claims Court Judges Required to Explain the Reasoning Behind a Decision?
Small Claims Court Decisions, Like Decisions In Other Courts, Must Be Explained By the Judge Providing the Reasoning For the Decision.
Note: Please contact Olson Craig Legal by phone at: (226) 886-2001 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
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. 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
Court judges, including judges within the Small Claims Court, are required to provide an explanation of the reasoning for which a decision is based. This requirement was explained within Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, wherein it was 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 amount of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” usually indicate a desire for prompt and effective legal support rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, the same Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, allowing them to advocate for clients in specific litigation scenarios. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural knowledge are foundational to this position. Olson Craig Legal provides legal representation within its authorized framework, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy to achieve swift and positive outcomes for clients.
