Last Updated: August 22 2026
Do Small Claims Court judges have to give reasons for their decision?
Yes, a Small Claims Court judge must provide reasons that explain what was decided and why, so the parties can understand the basis of the decision and it can be reviewed on appeal; although reasons in Small Claims Court may be less detailed than in higher courts, they still must be sufficiently clear for judicial review, consistent with Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735 and the Small Claims Court’s statutory mandate under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. If you need help understanding whether a decision’s reasons were adequate or how to respond in Ontario, White Owl Legal can assist with paralegal drafting and next-step guidance, call (289) 839-3075.
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 White Owl Legal by phone at: (289) 839-3075 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
Judges, including Small Claims Court judges, carry the duty of providing the reasoning upon which a judicial decision was made. The requirement of a reasoning was stated in Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, where it was 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 substantial number of online searches entailing “lawyers close to me” or “top lawyer in” typically indicate a demand for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, certified paralegals fall under the jurisdiction of the same Law Society that governs lawyers and are empowered to represent clients in specified litigation matters. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this position. White Owl Legal provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy with the goal of achieving effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
