Last Updated: , 66 days ago.
Do Ontario judges have to explain the reasons for their decisions in Small Claims Court and what should the reasons include?
PKM Legal Services can help if you’re dealing with a Small Claims Court decision and want to understand whether the judge must explain the “what” and the “why” of the outcome under Ontario law; judges in any court, including Small Claims Court, are required to provide reasons that explain the decision and the reasoning so the parties can understand it and a reviewing court can conduct meaningful appellate review, even though Small Claims reasons may be less detailed due to the court’s informal, high-volume process and its mandate under Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. The Court of Appeal has said reasons must be sufficiently clear to permit judicial review, expressing what was decided and why it was decided, see Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520, and a lack of adequate “what and why” can be an error in law, see Doerr v. Sterling Paralegal, 2014 ONSC 2335. For guidance on evaluating the adequacy of reasons and next steps in Ontario, call (519) 410-5250.
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 mandate is known as the duty to provide reasons and is necessary to ensure that the parties to a dispute understand the reasoning for a decision as well as to ensure a review, if necessary, upon Appeal.
Note: For immediate help, please contact PKM Legal Services by phone at: (519) 410-5250 to retain services or 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 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 significant number of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance, rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, the Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, who are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation contexts. Key components of this position include advocacy, legal scrutiny, and procedural expertise. PKM Legal Services offers legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at attaining effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
