|
Reasons - Effect of Delay. Davies v. Jane
In Davies v. Jane (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the sometimes negative effect of judicial delay in issuing a decision, and the reasons for decision:[23] Adequate reasons for decision are not merely a precondition for deference but are also a basic entitlement of every litigant. Reasons should demonstrate that the judge has considered each litigant’s argument and taken the time to explain why the losing party lost: Penate v. Martoglio, 2024 ONCA 166, 496 D.L.R. (4th) 50, at para. 21; Lawson v. Lawson (2006), 2006 CanLII 26573 (ON CA), 81 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), at paras. 13, 44. Reasons should also be released on a timely basis: Crump v. Fiture, 2018 ONCA 439, at para. 29.
[24] As noted above, the delay in this case between the conclusion of the trial and the release of the decision was inordinate. Further, the trial decision reflected extensive reliance in the wife’s written submissions with little, if any, reference to the husband’s submissions. Indeed, the husband prepared a “concordance” demonstrating, in effect, wholesale adoption of the wife’s written submissions. In this context, reasons cannot be said to be “adequate.” Deference cannot be afforded.
[25] While delay, without more, is not a ground of appeal, any delay of this magnitude creates the very risk exhibited here: that a decision-maker will, in the absence of independent recollection of the details of the trial, over-rely on the submissions of one party, including where those submissions contain obvious mistakes. Here, this was evident in the decision on equalization, which was essentially duplicative of the wife’s submissions, clearly incorrect, and made without evidence. While I recognize that there can be many causes for delay – personal or professional – this does not diminish litigants’ entitlement to timely and responsive reasons.
|
