What Happens at a Small Claims Court Settlement Conference

If your case doesn't settle right after filing or a Defence is contested, a settlement conference is very likely your next stop — before trial, and often before either side has spent much time or money on the case. Understanding what it actually is makes it far less intimidating when the date arrives, and it puts you in a much better position to actually use the opportunity it offers.

A settlement conference, in plain terms

A settlement conference is a required, informal meeting between the parties in a contested Small Claims Court case, presided over by a judge, held before trial. Its purpose isn't to decide who's right — it's to see whether the dispute can be resolved without a full trial, and if not, to help clarify and narrow what's actually still in dispute.

Why the court requires one

Trials take real time and resources — for the parties and for the court. A meaningful share of cases can be resolved once both sides sit down, hear a neutral perspective on their positions, and understand more clearly what trial would actually involve. Making this step mandatory, rather than optional, means every contested case gets a genuine opportunity to settle before either side commits fully to trial preparation.

There's also a practical benefit for the people involved, beyond the court system's own efficiency: a settlement conference gives both sides a lower-stakes, lower-cost preview of how their case might be received, before investing further time and effort into a full trial.

Who attends, and their role

• The plaintiff and defendant, generally both required to attend in person or through an authorized representative — confirm ahead of time whether your conference will actually be held in person or as a virtual or remote hearing, since this varies by court office.
• A judge, whose role here is to facilitate discussion, ask questions, and sometimes offer a candid view of each side's position — not to decide the case.
• Lawyers or licensed paralegals, if either side has chosen to be represented.

Because attendance is generally required, missing the date without a good reason can have real consequences for how your case proceeds — treat it as a mandatory court date, not an optional meeting.

What's discussed (and what generally isn't)

Expect discussion of the key facts in dispute, each side's evidence and its strengths and weaknesses, and possible settlement terms — a dollar amount, a payment schedule, or other resolution. What you generally won't see is a formal presentation of evidence the way a trial works, with sworn testimony and strict rules of evidence; the tone is more like a structured conversation than a hearing.

The judge may also raise practical questions that don't come up in the claim or Defence themselves — for example, whether either side has actually tried to resolve things directly, or what a realistic outcome at trial might look like given the evidence described. These questions are often where genuine movement toward settlement happens.

Confidentiality: what "without prejudice" means

Settlement discussions are generally treated as "without prejudice," meaning what's said in the room in an effort to settle usually can't be used as evidence against you later at trial if the case doesn't resolve. This protection exists specifically to encourage open, honest settlement discussion — you're not expected to hold back your negotiating position out of fear it will be used against you later.

In practice, this means you can float a compromise number, acknowledge a weaker part of your case in the context of exploring settlement, or ask hypothetical "what if" questions without those specific statements coming back to haunt you at trial. It's a meaningfully different environment from trial itself, where everything you say is part of the formal record.

The typical structure of the meeting

While every judge runs things a little differently, a settlement conference commonly follows a loose pattern: each side briefly summarizes their position, the judge asks clarifying questions and may highlight risks or weaknesses on either side, and then the discussion turns toward whether — and on what terms — the case might settle. This can happen with both parties in the room together, or with the judge speaking to each side separately at points, depending on how the discussion unfolds.

A short example exchange

To make this concrete: imagine a dispute over a $3,000 unpaid invoice for landscaping work. The plaintiff explains the work was completed and payment was never made. The defendant explains they withheld payment because part of the work — a retaining wall — wasn't built to the agreed specification. The judge might ask the plaintiff whether they have photos of the completed work, and ask the defendant whether they got a second opinion or quote on the alleged deficiency. Neither answer decides the case, but both help each side see how the dispute is likely to be tested if it goes to trial — which is often exactly what nudges a resolution forward.

Common misconceptions

• "The judge will decide who's right." Not at this stage — a settlement conference judge facilitates discussion; they don't rule on the case.
• "It's just a formality on the way to trial." Many cases genuinely resolve here — treating it as a box to check rather than a real opportunity is a missed chance.
• "Anything I say here can be used against me at trial." Generally not — the without-prejudice nature of these discussions is specifically meant to allow open settlement conversation.
• "I don't need to bring anything since it's informal." Informal in tone, not in substance — coming prepared with documents and a clear position matters just as much as it would at trial.

Possible outcomes

• A full settlement, ending the case without a trial.
• A partial settlement, resolving some issues and narrowing what remains.
• No settlement, with the case proceeding toward trial — often with both sides having a clearer picture of what that will actually involve.
• Procedural directions, such as timelines for next steps, which the judge may set even where the parties don't settle.

How this differs from a trial

A trial is where the case gets formally decided, based on evidence and legal argument, with a deputy judge reaching a binding decision. A settlement conference decides nothing — it's a structured opportunity to avoid needing that decision at all. Nothing said at a settlement conference determines who wins; the entire dynamic is oriented toward resolution rather than a ruling.

The formality also differs noticeably. Trials generally follow stricter procedure — sworn testimony, formal introduction of evidence, and a structured order of proceedings. A settlement conference is comparatively conversational, though it's still a court appearance and should be treated with the same seriousness and preparation.

If one side doesn't show up

Because attendance is generally required, not showing up without a legitimate reason can affect how the case proceeds from that point — potentially including consequences for the absent party. See missing your court date for what that can look like in practice. If you have a genuine conflict, address it with the court in advance rather than simply not appearing.

Getting ready for yours

Once you understand what a settlement conference actually is, the practical next step is preparing for it properly — organizing your documents, thinking through your numbers, and deciding your negotiating approach in advance. See our full guide on preparing for a settlement conference for a complete, step-by-step walkthrough.

The single most useful mindset shift is treating the settlement conference as a real opportunity rather than an obstacle between you and trial. Most people who prepare properly find it's a genuinely useful step, whether or not it ends in a settlement.

Frequently asked questions