Yes No Share to Facebook
Judicial Decision Reasons
The Requirement of an Explanation of the What and Why
Last Updated: July 02 2026
Question: 1) What are the reasons requirements for a Small Claims Court judge’s decision in Ontario?
Answer: 2) In Ontario, a Small Claims Court judge is required to provide reasons that explain what was decided and why, so the parties can understand the decision and, if needed, seek review on appeal, even though the reasons may be less detailed than in higher courts because of the Small Claims Court’s informal process and high volume; Courts describe this as the need for sufficiently clear reasons to permit meaningful appellate review, including in decisions like Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. (No. 231), 2015 ONCA 520 and Doerr v. Sterling Paralegal, 2014 ONSC 2335; If you want help reviewing whether the reasons in your Small Claims matter were sufficient, Olson Craig Legal can assist with lawyer and paralegal support across Ontario, call (226) 886-2001 for practical guidance.
Does a Small Claims Court Judge Need to Explain the Basis 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
Judges, including Small Claims Court judges, carry the duty of providing the reasoning upon which a judicial decision was made. The requirement of a reasoning was stated in Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, where it was 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 in a Small Claims Court case is required explain a judicial decisions by providing reasons for the 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 substantial amount of inquiries such as “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate an urgency for proficient legal assistance rather than a particular title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals operate under the same Law Society that governs lawyers and are permitted to advocate for clients in specific litigation cases. Skills in advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are core to this position. Olson Craig Legal provides legal representation within its licensed remit, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.