Last Updated: , 68 days ago.
How much detail must a Small Claims Court judge include in the reasons for a decision in Ontario?
In Ontario Small Claims Court, a judge (and deputy judge) must provide reasons that explain both what was decided and why, in enough detail to let the parties understand the basis of the decision and to permit meaningful judicial review or appeal, even though reasons can be brief due to the court’s informal, high-volume process and its duty under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. Courts have confirmed this in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520, and the “what and why” standard in Doerr v. Sterling Paralegal, 2014 ONSC 2335. If you need help checking whether the reasons are sufficient for a review or appeal, paralegal and property management support is available from Mole Legal Services in Ontario, call (647) 709-5157 for guidance.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Judges Are Required to Explain the Reasons for a Decision
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.
Note: For immediate help, please contact Mole Legal Services by phone at: (647) 709-5157 to retain services or to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
Court judges, including judges within the Small Claims Court, are required to provide an explanation of the reasoning for which a decision is based. This requirement was explained within Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, wherein it was 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 in a Small Claims Court case is required explain a judicial decisions by providing reasons for the 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 considerable quantity of online searches such as “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically signifies a pressing requirement for proficient legal assistance rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals operate under the same Law Society that governs lawyers and hold the authority to represent clients in specific litigation situations. Core functions of this role include advocacy, legal insight, and procedural expertise. Mole Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic alignment, preparation of evidence, and compelling advocacy geared towards achieving effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
