It can be frustrating when, at the end of lengthy, hard fought litigation with an even longer record a court hands down a short decision less than a page long.
The parties will scrutinize the decision, reading each line of the judge’s reasons over and over again. After repeating this exercise a few times they may still come away with the question – but why??
From a policy perspective, reasons for judgment which fully and clearly explain the result and reasons for the result at a hearing are desirable because they improve the transparency, accountability and reliability of decision-making, all of which enhance public confidence in the court system and the administration of justice.
For the losing party, sparse reasons for a decision may be considered one of the factors weighing in favour of an appeal. Recently, in its decision dismissing the appeal of Farmer v. Farmer, 2025 ONCA 442, the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed the standard set out its 2022 decision of Farej v. Fellows, 2022 ONCA 254 of what constitutes adequate reasons in the context of the appeal process.
In the context of a party seeking an appeal, the focus is not on the quality of reasons but rather the question of whether the reasons allow the appeal court to engage in a meaningful review of the substantive merits of the decision under appeal. This ties in with the standard of correctness when it comes to questions of law. In order to determine whether the standard of correctness has been met, the reasons must be sufficient to undertake that analysis. As set out in Farej v. Fellows, “if the appellants are correct and the reasons do not reveal the factual or legal basis for the trial judge’s conclusions, the appellants are effectively denied the exercise of their statutory right of appeal. That denial amounts to both an error in law and can result in a miscarriage of justice.”[1]
Farej v. Fellows sets out a two-step analysis when it comes to addressing the sufficiency of reasons as a grounds for appeal. First, the adequacy of reasons must be determined functionally. If the reasons permit meaningful appellate review, then the argument the reasons are inadequate fails. This is despite any other shortcomings an appellate may point to in the reasons. Second, the determination of the adequacy of the reasons is contextual. Context here includes the issues raised at trial, the evidence adduced, and the arguments made before the trial judge.
That said, appellate courts have also cautioned against reviewing a trial judge’s reasons in cases turning on credibility assessments. An appellate court cannot engage in its own assessment of a witness’s credibility under the guise of a purported review of the adequacy of a trial judge’s reasons.
The issue of a credibility finding in the application judge’s reasons arose in the appeal decision of Farmer v. Farmer, where the appellant argued that the application judge did not provide adequate reasons for their finding that they were not a credible witness. The court of appeal disagreed, finding that the application judge’s reasons were adequately rooted in the evidence, such that the appellant was not able to show a palpable and overriding error or an error in principle that would be grounds for an appeal.
0 Comments