|
Reasons - Adequate Reasons Discussed (6). Bradley v. Wang
In Bradley v. Wang (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against a finding of medical negligence and damages against the defendant.
Here the court considers the adequacy of reasons for decision:[9] It is well established that a trial judge’s reasons must be read functionally and as a whole, in light of the evidence and submissions, and with an understanding that it may be difficult to articulate why a particular witness was believed or disbelieved: Farej v. Fellows, 2022 ONCA 254, at paras. 45-50, leave to appeal refused, [2022] S.C.C.A. No. 180; Monk v. Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Company (Lindsay), 2019 ONCA 616, 92 B.L.R. (5th) 1, at para. 64, leave to appeal refused, [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 384. Moreover, a trial judge is under no obligation to refer to every piece of evidence, address every argument made by the parties, or resolve every alleged inconsistency in a witness’s testimony: Liu v. Huang, 2020 ONCA 450, at para. 18.
[10] As long as a trial judge has engaged in a reasoned assessment of a witness’s testimony, addressing the key challenges to credibility and reliability raised before them, their decision to believe or disbelieve all or any part of that witness’s testimony will be owed significant deference: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 235, at para. 72. . Lounge Medical Spa Ltd. v. DermaSpark Products Inc.
In Lounge Medical Spa Ltd. v. DermaSpark Products Inc. (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed two consolidated appeals, these involving Federal Court trademark damage proceedings.
Here the court considered inadequate reasons for decision:[9] Against this backdrop, I find that the Federal Court erred in law by providing inadequate reasons for its conclusions.
[10] Reasons need not be a model of perfection, nor do they need to be extensive or exhaustive. Rather, they must be read as a whole and in their overall context, including the evidentiary record before the court, the submissions of counsel, and the live issues, and must adequately explain why the court decided in a particular way, hence permitting meaningful appellate review (R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26 at paras. 28, 46, 50; R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51 at paras. 16-17, 37, 53; Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41 at para. 101; R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20 at paras. 69-70; Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), 2012 SCC 3 at para. 233; Canada v. Brokenhead First Nation, 2011 FCA 148 at paras. 31-33; SRI Homes Inc. v. Canada, 2012 FCA 208 at paras. 13-17; Canada v. Long Plain First Nation, 2015 FCA 177 at para. 143; Canada v. Greenwood, 2021 FCA 186 at para. 101, leave to appeal to SCC denied, 39885 (March 17, 2022); Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Energy Regulator), 2023 FCA 24 at paras. 197-198).
[11] Adopting a functional and contextual approach to the Federal Court’s reasons, I find that they do not adequately explain the basis for the conclusions (the "“why”"), thus precluding meaningful appellate review. . R. v. Blanco
In R. v. Blanco (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers a test for the adequacy of reasons for decision:The Test for Finding Reasons Insufficient
[22] On appellate review, reasons must be “sufficient in the context of the case for which they were given.” The reasons must be read as a whole, considering the issues at trial, to understand what was decided and why: R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, [2021] 1 S.C.R., at paras. 68-69.
[23] Poor reasons are not an independent ground of appeal. Where reasons fail to explain the “what” and the “why” but those answers are clear in the record, there will be no error: G.F., at para. 70; R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 38-40. Put another way, reasons are not insufficient when “[t]he foundations for the judge’s decision” are discernable “in the context of the evidence, the submissions of counsel and the history of how the trial unfolded”: G.F., at para. 69; and R.E.M., at para. 17.
[24] Reasons must be both factually and legally sufficient. Rarely will there be cases in which one cannot understand the factual basis for the trial judge’s findings, i.e., what the trial judge decided and why. Legal sufficiency requires that lawyers be able to discern the viability of an appeal and that appellate courts be able to determine whether an error has occurred. This is a context-specific inquiry to be assessed in light of the live issues at trial; it must reflect and respect the presumption that “the trial judge understands the basic principles of criminal law at issue in the trial” and is not required to demonstrate knowledge of such principles: G.F., at paras. 71, 74; and R.E.M., at para. 45.
|
