Simon looking earnest in Preveza, Greece

Simon Shields, Lawyer

Legal Guides
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

home / about / testimonials / conditions of guide use
Talk to the Lawyer
Instructions

simonshields@isp.com
At 01 March 2019, after just over one year's medical leave,
Simon's law practice will re-open. Whoo-hoo ....!
- 12 February 2019

THE LATEST WORD

(what's this?)

Orders - Final v Interlocutory
Brunning v Fontaine (Ont CA, 2019)

Orders and Judgments - Reasons for Decision

Orders - Final versus Interlocutory


Judgments - Stare Decisis - Per Incuriam Exception


Orders - Final v Interlocutory

Orders - Final v Interlocutory

Orders - Interlocutory v Final - Third Parties

Orders - Interlocutory versus Final

Orders - Final v Interlocutory - Contempt

Orders - Final or Interlocutory

Judgments - Adequacy of Reasons


Orders - Final v Interlocutory - Appeal Route

Orders - Interlocutory v Final

Orders - Setting Aside - For Fraud

Orders - Reasons for Decision - Adequacy

Orders - Final versus Interlocutory

Orders - Final versus Interlocutory - Order Quashing Subpoenas

Orders - Reasons for Judgment

Orders - Default Judgment - Set Aside - Liquidated Damages

Judgments - Reasons - Adequacy

Orders - Final v Interlocutory

Orders - Functus Officio

Orders - Final v Interlocutory

Orders - Reasons for Decision - Adequacy


Reasons - Issues Outside of the Pleadings


Orders - Finality - Exception

Reasons - Failure to Refer to Witness


Orders - Reasons for Judgment


Orders - Final v Interlocutory
Orders - Taking Out of Formal Orders
Cheung v. Samra (Ont CA, 2018)


===== ORDERS

---------------------- Orders / leading case/s on sufficiency of reasons: as cited in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 (CanLII)

[13] On appeal to a single judge of the Divisional Court, the court found that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review as required by the test set out in R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51 (CanLII), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 17 While R.E.M. was a criminal case, these principles apply equally to reasons given in civil cases: D.M. Drugs (Harris Guardian Drugs) v. Barry Edward Bywater (Parkview Hotel), 2013 ONCA 356 (CanLII), at para. 35; F.H. v. MacDougall, 2008 SCC 53 (CanLII), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, at paras. 97-101.

----------------------- Orders - leading case on adequacy of reasons

R. v. Sheppard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, 2002 SCC 26 (CanLII),

------------------------------------- ORDERS / Reasons

8. The Supreme Court of Canada in a series of decisions (the most recent being R. v. Walker released by the Supreme Court June 6, 2008) has reiterated the need for judges in trial courts to give adequate reasons for the decisions they render so that the losing party knows why he or she has lost, interested members of the public can satisfy themselves that justice has been done and an appellate court can review the reasons for the decision, among other things.

Law Society Number #37308N / Website © Simon Shields 2005-2019