Yes No Share to Facebook
Judicial Decision Reasons
The Requirement of an Explanation of the What and Why
Last Updated: July 04 2026
Question: What does it mean when Small Claims Court reasons explain “what” was decided and “why” it was decided, and can a paralegal help me understand the decision in Ontario?
Answer: In Ontario, Small Claims Court judges must provide reasons that clearly explain both the outcome (“what”) and the reasoning (“why”) so the parties can understand the decision and so an appeal or judicial review can be meaningful, even though the process is informal and often involves shorter reasons than higher courts; for example, Ontario cases like Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520, and Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, emphasize that the reasons must be sufficiently clear to permit appellate review while accounting for Small Claims Court’s volume and mandate under the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43; if you have a Small Claims decision and you want help interpreting the reasoning and next steps, White Owl Legal can assist with practical, Ontario-focused guidance from a paralegal, so call (289) 839-3075 today.
Is a Judge In a Small Claims Court Case Required to Explain Why a Decision Was Made the Way the Decision Was Made?
Small Claims Court Decisions, Like Decisions In Other Courts, Must Be Explained By the Judge Providing the Reasoning For the Decision.
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
A judge in a Small Claims Court case is required explain a judicial decisions by providing reasons for the 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: A significant volume of online searches for “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and effective legal support rather than a particular label. In Ontario, paralegals who are licensed are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to advocate for clients in specific litigation areas. Core to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. White Owl Legal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, preparation of evidence, and compelling advocacy directed at securing timely and beneficial outcomes for clients.