|
Reasons - Degree Canvassing (2). Bank of Montreal v. Ieradi
In Bank of Montreal v. Ieradi (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - here brought against an order "in the amount of $632,564.31, the amount owing on an unsecured loan, plus $105,000.00 in costs".
Here the court considers the degree of evidence review required in adequate reasons for decision:[10] The trial judge is not required to refer to all the evidence or address every submission made. The reasons must disclose the evidentiary basis for the decision. The court is required to identify the path taken to reach its decision: Clifford v. Ontario Municipal Employee Retirement System, 2009 ONCA 670, 98 O.R. (3d) 210, at para. 29 leave to appeal refused, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 461; R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 18-21. . Chown v. Frontenac Condominium Corporation No. 19 [conclusory reasons]
In Chown v. Frontenac Condominium Corporation No. 19 (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an appeal, here brought against the decision of "the Chair of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (the “CAT”) ... finding that impugned Minutes of Board Meetings of the Respondent Condominium satisfy the requirements of the Condominium Act".
This is an unusual court note, apparently instructing the lower tribunal how it might deal with excessively 'picayune' (the court's term, at para 14) complaints - this in a board minutes-complaint context:A Note on Sufficiency of Reasons
[24] It is not generally the role of this court to undertake the analysis set out above at paragraphs 16-23. That is the task of the tribunal at first instance. Where a tribunal gives conclusory reasons, this court may well send the case back to the tribunal for a “do over”: the tribunal’s analysis, and not just its conclusion, should be available for this court for the purposes of appeal.
[25] I would not, however, send this case back for a “re-do” because the basis of the decision below seems clear and largely justified by the way this case was argued before the CAT. When a claimant raises 67 complaints, and it is perfectly plain that most of them are without merit, the tribunal should not spend its time providing a detailed analysis of each impugned minute. Using the technique used in this decision, of addressing a claimant’s most compelling complaints and then declining to give detailed analysis of the remaining complaints (where the most compelling complaints do not establish the claim) would provide sufficient analysis for this court to do its work on appeal without having to undertake the work that should be done at first instance.
[26] I was satisfied, after considering the four examples above, that the “most compelling” examples urged by the Appellant were not, in fact, meritorious. This is a small condominium corporation, and the unitholders (including the Appellant) should not be put to more legal expense to get to the bottom of the “minutes” issue.
|
