Appeal-Judicial Review - Inadequate Reasons Arguments and Cynicism. Parmar v. Flora
In Parmar v. Flora (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal expresses some cynicism about parties' 'reasons for decision' arguments:
(4) Inadequate Reasons
 I do not accept the father’s submission that the application judge’s reasons are inadequate. The application judge made findings of fact, carefully explained them, and applied the correct legal principles. There is no basis for a finding of inadequacy. The father’s submission, with respect to the sufficiency of reasons, appears to merely be a complaint that the trial judge made findings that he did not agree with. The reasons are sufficient; he does not like the result. I share the views of Doherty J.A., in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Neinstein, 2010 ONCA 193, 99 O.R. (3d) 1, at para. 4, where he commented:
I am dubious about the merits of arguments claiming that reasons for judgment are inadequate. Experience teaches that many of those arguments are, in reality, arguments about the merits of the fact-finding made in those reasons. By framing the argument in terms of the adequacy of the reasons, rather than the correctness of the fact finding, an appellant presumably hopes to avoid the stringent standard of review applicable to findings of fact.