Last Updated: August 24 2026
Do I have to receive reasons for a Small Claims Court decision in Ontario?
DK Legal Practice can help you understand whether a Small Claims Court judge must give reasons, and what “what” and “why” should appear in the decision for proper review or appeal in Ontario. In general, judges must provide an explanation for the decision, even though Small Claims reasons may be brief, as the court must permit meaningful appellate review by clearly stating what was decided and why it was decided, including the Small Claims Court’s statutory mandate under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 and the reasons requirement discussed in Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735. If you need help assessing a decision or drafting your next-step plan with a paralegal, call (416) 906-6663.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Does a Small Claims Court Judge Need to Provide a Reasoning For a Decision?
Judicial Decisions, Even In the Small Claims Court, Must Contain Reasons For the Decision.
Note: Please contact DK Legal Practice by phone at: (416) 906-6663 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. 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
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 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 quantity of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicates a desire for prompt, competent legal assistance rather than a precise professional designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers, granting them the authority to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Skills in advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural execution are fundamental to that position. DK Legal Practice provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing effective and favourable outcomes for clients.
