Yes No Share to Facebook
Judicial Decision Reasons
The Requirement of an Explanation of the What and Why
Last Updated: July 02 2026
Question: Can a Paralegal help me understand whether a Small Claims Court judge must explain the reasons for their decision in Ontario?
Answer: In Ontario, Vagans Legal (paralegal services) can help you understand that a Small Claims Court judge is generally required to give reasons explaining what the court decided and why, even though reasons may be brief given the court’s informal, high-volume process. For example, in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520, the Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized that Small Claims Court reasons must be sufficiently clear to permit judicial review on appeal by explaining both the “what” and the “why.” If you want to assess whether the reasons are adequate for review, call (416) 473-8472 to discuss your situation and next steps with a Paralegal serving people across Ontario.
Does a Small Claims Court Judge Need to Provide a Reasoning For a Decision?
Judges, Regardless of the Level of Court, Are Required to Explain the Basis For Making a Decision.
Understanding the Requirement of Reasons Within Judicial Decisions Including Small Claims Court Cases
A judge of the Small Claims Court, like other courts, must provide details that explain the reasoning for the decisions made by the judge. 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
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 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 significant number of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate an urgent need for effective legal assistance rather than a particular title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and hold the authority to represent clients in specified litigation issues. Core to their role are advocacy, legal analysis, and a mastery of procedures. Vagans Legal provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, preparation of evidentiary materials, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
