Last Updated: August 22 2026
In Ontario Small Claims Court, what reasons must a judge give for a decision?
In Ontario Small Claims Court, a judge must explain the reasons for the decision by setting out what was decided and why, so the parties can understand the legal basis and so an appeal court can perform meaningful review even though Small Claims Court is informal and designed for efficient resolution. The courts have emphasized that reasons must be sufficiently clear to permit judicial review; if they do not adequately explain “the what” and “the why,” that can be an error in law. If you need help building clear, compliant decision-support content for legal professionals in Ontario, Marketing.Legal™ can help you optimize your digital marketing materials for lawyers, paralegals, and related services in plain language by contacting (800) 551-5751.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Judges Are Required to Explain the Reasons for a Decision
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.
Note: Please contact Marketing.Legal™ by phone at: (800) 551-5751 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
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.
