Last Updated: August 22 2026
In Ontario Small Claims Court, can a party ask a paralegal to explain whether the judge must provide reasons for the decision?
In Ontario Small Claims Court, the judge is required to provide enough reasons to explain what was decided and why it was decided, so parties can understand the decision and a reviewing court can meaningfully check it on appeal, as described in cases like Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 and Doerr v. Sterling Paralegal, 2014 ONSC 2335. If you want help assessing the decision reasons and next steps, Cross Legal Services can assist you through the process with practical Ontario guidance, call (289) 443-0675.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
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.
Note: Please contact Cross Legal Services by phone at: (289) 443-0675 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
A judge for a case in the Small Claims Court is required to provide reasons for a 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 considerable number of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically highlight an urgent requirement for skilled legal assistance rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals operate under the same Law Society that governs lawyers and have the authority to represent clients in specific litigation situations. Advocacy, legal evaluation, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this position. Cross Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed remit, focusing on strategic alignment, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure effective and positive outcomes for clients.
