Last Updated: August 26 2026
Does a Small Claims Court judge in Ontario have to explain the reasons for the decision?
Yes, a Small Claims Court judge is expected to provide reasons that explain what was decided and why, so the parties can understand the legal basis and, if needed, an appeal court can review the decision; courts have recognized this requirement even with the Small Claims Court’s informal and high-volume process, including in Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, and the access-to-justice rationale in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp., 2015 ONCA 520 If you are dealing with a Small Claims matter and want help assessing whether the reasons were sufficient for review, Ajodhia Legal Services can help you understand next steps and options in Ontario by paralegal support, so call (647) 882-8205.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Are Case Decisions From the Small Claims Court Explained By the Judge?
Judges, Regardless of the Level of Court, Are Required to Explain the Basis For Making a Decision.
Note: Please contact Ajodhia Legal Services by phone at: (647) 882-8205 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 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. 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
The duty of a judge, including a Small Claims Court judge, to provide quality reasons for a judicial decision was well stated in Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, wherein it was specifically 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
Judges, including Small Claims Court judge, must explain the basis for a 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: An extensive number of online searches such as “lawyers in my area” or “top lawyer in” usually indicate a pressing need for competent legal assistance rather than a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to advocate for clients in particular litigation scenarios. Their role focuses heavily on advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise. Ajodhia Legal Services provides legal representation within its approved mandate, emphasising strategic positioning, the preparation of evidence, and compelling advocacy to secure efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
