|
Small Claims Court - Reasons for Decision. Earle v. Toro Roofing Inc.
In Earle v. Toro Roofing Inc. (Div Court, 2024) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an appeal from the Small Claims Court, here in a renovation dispute.
Here the court considers the adequacy of reasons in the Small Claims context:[21] Although the deputy judge’s reasons on this and some of the other issues raised by Ms. Earle were brief, this was appropriate not only because of the limited emphasis placed on the issue by Ms. Earle, but also given the Small Claims Court context. Section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 specifically authorizes the Small Claims Court to determine the issues before it in a summary way. In Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520, 389 D.L.R. (4th) 711 at para. 35, the Court of Appeal cautioned against assessing the adequacy of reasons without taking the Small Claims Court context into account, stating that “[A]ppellate 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.” . RVR Concrete v. Windsor Wall Forming
In RVR Concrete v. Windsor Wall Forming (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court considered the detail required of reasons for decision in the Small Claims Court:[71] However, it is well settled, at both the trial and appellate levels, that reasons for judgment issued by deputy judges of the Small Claims Court need not be as detailed as those in the Superior Court of Justice. Our courts have acknowledged the informal nature of the Small Claims Court and the volume of cases that come before it.[26] In A. Breda Ltd. v. Perse Auto Sales Inc., the Divisional Court held that “[i]t would be an error to expect that reasons for judgment in small claims matters are as detailed, thorough and formal as the decisions in trial matters before the Superior Court.”[27]
[72] In the same vein, in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Crop. No. 231, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the statutory and practical context in which the Small Claims Court operates and addressed the sufficiency of reasons in that context, as follows:The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that access to justice is a significant and ongoing challenge to the justice system with the potential to threaten the rule of law. …
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.
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 (Ont. Div. Ct.), 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 (Ont. C.A. [In Chambers]), 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.[28] [Emphasis added.] [73] Similarly, in Davis v. Sutton, the Divisional Court held that: “Reasons for Judgment in Small Claims court matters are not expected to meet the level of detail in Superior Court.”[29]
[74] As well, in Chieffallo v. Ghuman, the Divisional Court held that, in deciding cases in the Small Claims Court, “it is not expected that the reasons for judgment articulate the judge’s entire thought process,” as follows:In a busy high volume court such as Small Claims Court in which deputy judges are expected to act efficiently and generally give oral judgments, it is not expected that the reasons for judgment articulate the judge’s entire thought process. In any court, it is sufficient if the reasons are responsive to the live issues and the parties’ key arguments. Reasons must be sufficient to demonstrate why the decision was arrived at when read in the context of the evidence and arguments before the court. Reasons are not inadequate simply because with the benefit of hindsight the judge might have done a better job of expressing himself and in any event the adequacy of reasons is not in itself a free standing basis for appeal.[30] [75] The reasons of the deputy judge here are responsive to the live issues raised by the parties and their key arguments, and they certainly permit appellate review. To impose the same standard of detail championed by the appellant is exactly what our appellate courts have repeatedly held should not be done. This ground of appeal must be dismissed. . Capital One v. Jonathan
In Capital One v. Jonathan (Div Ct, 2022) the Divisional Court considered reasons in a Small Claims Court case:[26] Mew, J. went on to observe at para. 15 that “it would present an unwarranted burden on an already overburdened system if every decision on costs had to be supported by reasons. This is particularly so in the Small Claims Court, which is intended to provide an inexpensive, speedy and user-friendly forum to accommodate civil disputes involving modest amounts.”
[27] However, in referring to the decision of Low, J. in Mayer v. Zuker, (2009) 2009 CanLII 15147 (ON SCDC), 249 O.A.C. 1 (Div. Ct.) Mew, J. noted that, where there is departure from the usual practice, in that case that costs should follow the event, then the absence of reasons itself may provide an impetus to appeal where the presence of reasons, however brief, may have informed a decision to accept the result.
[28] At para. 23 Mew, J. noted that, where there are no reasons given by judge for the exercise of his or her discretion, it may nevertheless be possible to find in the record before the court grounds upon which he or she could properly have exercised his or her discretion not to award costs to the successful party.
[29] In the case of Jane Conte Professional Corporation v. Smith, 2014 ONSC 6009 (Div. Ct.) Nordheimer, J. (as he then was) stated at para. 8: “The giving of reasons for any decision made is a critical part of a judge's role. While the reasons do not have to be lengthy or particularly detailed, the reasons must, at the very least, explain why the decision was reached and thus allow for proper appellate review.”
[30] There is nothing in the record in the case at bar which would offer insight into the basis upon which the exercise of discretion by the Assessment Judge was carried out, and specifically why the plaintiff’s request for disbursements of $100 for preparing the plaintiff’s claim, $197.75 for service of the plaintiff’s claim, due to the special circumstances set out in the supporting affidavit, and the $120 court fee for filing the plaintiff’s notice of motion and supporting affidavit were disallowed. . Elnasr v. Mostafa
In Elnasr v. Mostafa (Div Ct, 2022) the Divisional Court reviewed the law of reasons for decision, in the context of the Small Claims Court:[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.
|
