|
Reasons - SCC - General. Hemmings v. Padmore
In Hemmings v. Padmore (SCC, 2026) the Supreme Court of Canada (in a closely-split decisions) dismissed two medical malpractice appeals (by the plaintiff H and defendant J) from the Ontario Court of Appeal, which had before dismissed actions against defendant P but held against defendant J.
Here (in 2026) the Supreme Court considers law on the adequacy of 'reasons for decision':C. Sufficiency of Reasons
[136] The role of appellate courts, when considering whether trial reasons are sufficient, is to “assess whether the reasons, read in context and as a whole, in light of the live issues at trial, explain what the trial judge decided and why they decided that way in a manner that permits effective appellate review” (R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 801, at para. 69; see also R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 15). In undertaking this assessment, appellate courts must conduct a functional and contextual review of the reasons (G.F., at para. 69).
[137] To succeed on this ground, an appellant must show error or the frustration of appellate review (G.F., para. 79, citing R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 54). Even when reasons are deficient or ambiguous, appellate review is not frustrated unless, in the context of the record as a whole, ambiguities in the trial reasons render the path taken by the trial judge unintelligible (G.F., at paras. 71 and 79).
[138] Factual sufficiency requires that the factual basis of a trial judge’s decision be intelligible to an appellate court (Sheppard, at para. 52). The reasons are factually sufficient if “what” the trial judge decided and “why” they decided that way is apparent from the record (G.F., at para. 71, citing Sheppard, at paras. 52 and 55).
[139] Legal sufficiency is concerned with the parties’ ability to meaningfully exercise their right to appeal (G.F., at para. 74, citing Sheppard, at paras. 64-66). Reasons are legally sufficient if an appellate court can discern whether an error has occurred (G.F., at para. 74, citing Sheppard, at paras. 46 and 55). This standard is highly context-specific and must be assessed in terms of the live issues at trial and the entirety of the record before the court (G.F., at paras. 74-75; Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129, at para. 101). The standard may require more detail in different circumstances, including where a trial judge is called on to settle a controversial point of law (G.F., at para. 75) or to consider contradictory evidence on a key issue (Sheppard, at para. 55). However, in completing its review, an appellate court must guard against finely parsing the reasons in search of such an error; instead the appellate court should read the reasons generously and with the presumption that the trial judge knows the law (G.F., at paras. 69 and 74; R. v. Gerrard, 2022 SCC 13, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 279, at para. 2).
....
[146] .... it is only where ambiguities, when considered in the context of the record as a whole, render the trial judge’s reasoning unintelligible that appellate review will be frustrated (para. 79, citing Sheppard, at para. 46).
[147] The Court of Appeal was entitled to consider the full record before it when reviewing the trial judge’s reasons. Indeed, in the context of a complicated factual matrix, a thorough engagement with that record was required to conduct meaningful appellate review. Rather than “backfill” the trial judge’s reasoning, as asserted by Dr. Jamensky (A.F., at para. 80), the Court of Appeal appropriately considered the evidentiary bases for the trial judge’s reasons in the context of the record as a whole. ....
|
