Appeal-Judicial Review - Reasons - May Be Inferred from the Record. R. v. Lloyd
In R. v. Lloyd (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers that where the reasons are obvious from the record, an 'inadequate reasons' argument will not be successful:
 Where it is “apparent from the record, even without being articulated” how the trial judge arrived at her decision, no error will be found: R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26,  1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 6. The reviewing court must examine the evidence and determine whether the reasons for conviction are, in fact, patent on the record: Sheppard, at para. 55; R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24,  1 S.C.R. 788, at para. 32; R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, 404 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at paras. 68-75.. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov
 While the Reasons for Judgment on the finding of guilt do not set out the basis upon which the trial judge resolved the discrepancy raised by the error in the initial English transcript, it is “apparent from the record, even without being articulated” how the trial judge arrived at her decision.
In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov (SCC, 2022) the Supreme Court of Canada considers the adequacy of reasons for decision [paras 91-98], and notes that they may be inferred from the record:
... Where a decision maker’s rationale for an essential element of the decision is not addressed in the reasons and cannot be inferred from the record, the decision will generally fail to meet the requisite standard of justification, transparency and intelligibility.