Yes No Share to Facebook
Judicial Decision Reasons
The Requirement of an Explanation of the What and Why
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: Do Small Claims Court judges in Ontario have to explain their decision in plain terms?
Answer: Yes. In Ontario Small Claims Court, a judge (including on Small Claims matters) is required to provide reasons that explain what was decided and why, and the reasons must be clear enough to permit meaningful judicial review on appeal, even though they may be shorter than in higher courts. Courts recognize the Small Claims Court’s informal process and high volume, but the “what” and “why” must still be stated sufficiently for appellate consideration, including under s. 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, as discussed in Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735 and Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520. If you need help reviewing whether reasons were adequate for your situation, Vagans Legal offers paralegal support across Ontario and can help you understand the next steps. Call (416) 473-8472 today.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Is a Small Claims Court Judge Required to Provide An Explanation For a Decision?
A Judge Is Required to Provide An Explanation For a Decision. This Requirement Applies Even In the Small Claims Court.
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 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
A Small Claims Court judge, likely judges within other courts, is required to provide and explanation for a decision as per, among other cases, Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, which 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 in a Small Claims Court case is required explain a judicial decisions by providing reasons for the 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 considerable multitude of inquiries pertaining to “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicates a demand for prompt, competent legal representation instead of a particular professional designation. In Ontario, paralegals with licenses are governed by the identical Law Society that regulates lawyers, enabling them to represent clients in specified litigation scenarios. Advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural proficiency are fundamental to that function. Vagans Legal provides legal representation within its licensed boundaries, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy designed to secure efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
