Page 148 - Magistrates Conference 2019

(81) At paragraphs 67 and 68, Associate Chief Justice Cullen said:

[67] In R. v. Y.M. (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 388 (C.A.) at para. 23, Justice Laskin for the

Court commented on the issue of inadequate reasons in the application of W.(D.),
referring to R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26:

23. Sheppard warns against conclusory reasons, that is, conclusions without

explanations for them. However, as desirable as it is to give reasoned reasons, a
failure to do so does not automatically amount to reversible error. In Sheppard,

Binnie J. explained that inadequate reasons do not confer “a free-standing right of
appeal” or “entitlement to appellate intervention” (para. 53). Instead, he adopted a

functional approach. The adequacy of the judge’s reasons must be assessed against

the rationales for giving them. In some cases inadequate reasons do not preclude
meaningful appellate review or prevent an accused from knowing why he or she was

convicted. For instance, the accused’s evidence may obviously incredible, or the

prosecution’s evidence may be overwhelming and unchallenged, and thus the basis of
the conviction may be clear from the record…

[68] As I noted earlier, this is not a case where the basis of the appellant's

conviction is clear from the record. There are contradictory accounts of the events
and some of the factors affecting the credibility or reliability of the complainant

have relevance to Mr. Chartrand. In that context, the judge's failure to do more
than provide a brief summary of the appellant's evidence without any analysis or

comment does not meet the needs set out in Sheppard – to explain to the accused

why he was convicted, and to make appellate review of the decision meaningful.”
[emphasis added]

(82) In the People (at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions) v Michael McKevitt, a

decision of the Supreme Court of Ireland, one of the issues raised on appeal was the

inadequacy of reasons with respect to the credibility findings of one of the prosecution
witnesses. In that context, Justice Geoghegan observed:

‘In fairness to the appellant, the main thrust of the attack on the credibility findings

by the Special Criminal Court is the alleged inadequacy of reasons given for the
belief and the omission expressly to deal with each of the credibility points against

Page 17 of 26