|
Criminal - Reasons for Decision (2). R. v. T.B.
In R. v. T.B. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers insufficient reasons for decision, here in a criminal context:[25] The threshold for appellate intervention based on an allegation of insufficient reasons is high: R. v. Kirkham, 2013 ONCA 437, at para. 3. Reasons are not to be parsed line by line in search of error, but read as a whole, in the context of the evidence, the issues, and the arguments at trial: G.F., at para. 20; R. v. Chung, 2020 SCC 8, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 405, at para. 13; R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 16. Not every finding or conclusion need be set out. When reviewing oral judgments, appellate judges must “read between the lines, not ignore the implicit, strive to recognize the underlying meaning of first instance judgments” while refraining from speculation: R. v. Ouellet, 2025 QCCA 347, 452 C.C.C. (3d) 497, at paras. 16-22, aff’d 2025 SCC 40, 509 D.L.R. (4th) 50. . R v. K.L.
In R v. K.L. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers the adequacy of reasons for decision, here in a criminal context:[21] Ultimately, the court is to take a functional and contextual approach in reviewing a trial judge’s reasons: R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 801, at para. 69. The Supreme Court has instructed that appellate courts are not to “finely parse” trial decisions searching for errors; rather, “they 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”: G.F., at para. 69. Reviewing the trial judge’s reasons in this light discloses no error.
|
