Appeal-Judicial Review - Reasons - None Given. Mammarella v. Ontario College of Teachers
In Mammarella v. Ontario College of Teachers (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a JR of a tribunal 'rule change' (not of a specific case decision), here of the 'Rules of Procedure of the Discipline and Fitness to Practise Committee' of the Ontario College of Teachers relating to third party evidence disclosure.
Here the court addresses an 'inadequate reasons' JR argument against the Rule change:
 ... The applicant relies on the absence of reasons for the Committees’ decision to change the rule. The applicant further challenges the memorandum put forward to the Committees in support of the then proposed change. . Freeman’s Service Centre Ltd. v. Modern Auto Parts Limited
 As noted in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65,  4 S.C.R. 653, at para. 136, formal reasons are not necessarily required. The applicant has not shown that they were required in this instance. Where formal reasons have not been provided, the reviewing court looks at the record as a whole to understand the decision: Vavilov, at para. 137. The memorandum put forward in support of the proposed change is relevant context. It noted that the prior rules were sparse, that the R. v. O’Connor test had been applied, discussed the test in R. v. Mills, noted that it was intended to counter improper stereotypes about sexual assault victims, and noted that the Regulated Health Professions Act had already codified the R. v. Mills regime and other regulators had also done so.
In Freeman’s Service Centre Ltd. v. Modern Auto Parts Limited (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal dismissed an inadequate 'reasons for decision' appeal, even though the motion judge (in an unopposed motion) issued no reasons at all (apparently not even oral reasons):
 The Cedarholme Defendants seek to set aside the Order primarily on the basis that the motion judge failed to give any reasons for his decision. While the motion judge did not give any reasons for the Order made on an unopposed basket motion, the record clearly discloses the basis upon which it was made: R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26,  1 S.C.R. 869, at paras. 37 and 46; R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, 459 D.L.R. (4th) 375, at paras. 70-71.
 In our view, the record clearly discloses the reason why Broad J. struck out the Cedarholme Defendants’ pleading: notwithstanding the multiple opportunities they were given to answer undertakings, they failed to file any materials in response to Freeman’s motion to strike and failed to provide answers to the remaining undertakings. The Cedarholme Defendants were treated fairly during this process but failed to avail themselves of the opportunities given to them by the court to satisfy their undertaking obligations and to respond to Freeman’s motion. Striking out the Cedarholme Defendants’ pleading for their default was a remedy available to the motion judge in the circumstances.