In R. v. S.B. (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal cited the standard of review regarding inadequate reasons, here in a criminal appeal:
 Insufficiency of reasons can be a reversible error if the appellant demonstrates “either error or the frustration of appellate review”: R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, 459 D.L.R. (4th) 375, at para. 79. However, an appellate court must not finely parse the trial judge’s reasons in a “line by line search for errors”: R. v. Chung, 2020 SCC 8,  1 S.C.R. 405, at paras. 13 and 33. As the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated in R. v. G.F., the task of appellate courts is much narrower: “[T]hey must assess whether the reasons, read in context and as a whole, in light of the live issues at trial, explain what the trial judge decided and why they decided that way in a manner that permits effective appellate review”: at para. 69.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.