Simon's Legal Resources

Reasons - Logical Continuity

. Heegsma v. Hamilton (City)

In Heegsma v. Hamilton (City) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, this brought against the dismissal of a JR Charter s.7 and s.15 "challenge the City of Hamilton’s by-law that prohibits installing tents and sleeping in public parks in the City and to challenge the City’s actions removing them from public parks in Hamilton during the relevant period" seeking declarations and damages.

The court considered the adequacy of reasons for decision, here emphasizing that they 'must set out a logical path to the judge’s conclusion':

[41] Reasons for judgment must set out a logical path to the judge’s conclusion; this is integral to the proper administration of justice: Marketology Media Inc. v. DGA North American Inc., 2024 ONCA 799, at para. 32. Reasons serve various purposes. They explain the decision to the parties, they foster public accountability, and they permit effective appellate review: see R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 11. Reasons must chart a path from the evidence to the factual findings to the legal conclusions: Marketology, at para. 32; R.E.M., at para. 20. They must explain not only what the decision is, but why.