Simon looking earnest in Preveza, Greece
Simon Shields, Lawyer

Advising Self-Representing
Ontario Litigants
Since 2005

tenant / small claims / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer /
collection agencies / criminal injuries compensation / sppa (admin law)
/ line fences / animal cruelty / dogs & cats / wild animal law (all Canada) / war / conditions of guide use

home / about / client testimonials / areas of practice / about self-representation

Your
Self-Representation
Service Options

Simon Shields, LLB




























Judgments - Reasons - Adequacy

G & P Procleaners and General Contractors Inc. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company (Ont CA, 2017)

Here the Court of Appeal briefly sets out the functions of reasons for judgment:
[26] The appellant submits that the reasons of the motion judge are insufficient to permit appellate review.

[27] Reasons serve four functions: (i) to justify and explain the result; (ii) to tell the losing party why they lost; (iii) to provide for informed consideration of the grounds of the appeal; and (iv) to satisfy the public that justice has been done: R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26 (CanLII), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 24; and F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 (CanLII), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, at para. 98.

[28] The alleged inadequacy of reasons is not a freestanding ground of appeal: R. v. Walker, 2008 SCC 34 (CanLII), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 245, at para. 20; and F.H., at para. 99.

[29] In the present case, the reasons were very brief. However, they were written in a manner such that the motion judge’s chain of reasoning is readily apparent. It is clear from the reasoning that the motion judge dealt with all of the relevant issues raised on the motion. In my view, the reasons fulfill all of the functions articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sheppard. I would, therefore, not give effect to this ground of appeal.


Lawyer License #37308N / Website © Simon Shields 2005-2017