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.
Are Case Decisions From the Small Claims Court Explained By the Judge?
Court Decisions, Even Small Claims Court Decisions, Must be Explained With the Reasoning For the Decision Provided By the Judge.
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
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 for a case in the Small Claims Court is required to provide reasons for a 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 significant number of web searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt and effective legal assistance, rather than focusing on a particular title. In Ontario, paralegals who hold a licence are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers, granting them the authority to represent clients in specified litigation situations. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are integral to this position. Vagans Legal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, emphasising strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
