| ||||||||
|
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. |
||||||||
| ||||||||
