Yes No Share to Facebook
Judicial Decision Reasons
The Requirement of an Explanation of the What and Why
Last Updated: August 24 2026
Question: Do Small Claims Court judges have to explain the reasoning behind their decision in Ontario?
Answer: In Ontario Small Claims Court, judges must provide reasons that explain what was decided and why, so litigants can understand the decision and so an appeal or judicial review can meaningfully assess it. This duty is recognized in cases such as Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, and the Courts of Justice Act requires the Small Claims Court to “hear and determine in a summary way,” while still providing reasons clear enough for review, as described in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520. If you’re unsure whether inadequate reasons could affect your case, Askew Paralegal Services can help you prepare your appeal materials and next steps; call (289) 439-4740.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Does a Small Claims Court Judge Need to Provide a Reasoning For a Decision?
A Judge In All Courts, Including the Small Claims Court, Is Required to Explain the Reasons For a Decision.
Note: Please contact Askew Paralegal Services by phone at: (289) 439-4740 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 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 in a Small Claims Court case is required explain a judicial decisions by providing reasons for the 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 amount of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt, competent legal assistance instead of a precise job designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are empowered to advocate for clients in specified litigation issues. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural knowledge are fundamental to this position. Askew Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic alignment, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy geared towards attaining swift and beneficial resolutions for clients.
