“In her notice of appeal, the appellant alleges that the motion judge’s reasons were insufficient on the analysis of credibility and fail to assess contradictory evidence. Insufficiency of reasons is an error of law that, if established upon appeal, would lead to an order for a new trial.
I find that the motion judge’s reasons were comprehensive, and the purposes for providing reasons were met. As set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. REM, 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 41, reasons have three fundamental purposes:
(a) Reasons should tell the parties affected by the decision (especially the losing party) why the decision was made. Reasons also show that the judge has heard and considered the evidence and arguments before them and has not considered extraneous considerations.
(b) Reasons should provide public accountability by showing that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.
(c) Reasons must permit effective appellate review. This requires the judge to give a clear articulation of the factual findings and legal principles that underlay the decision.
Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. E.K.B, 2019 ONSC 6214 (CanLII) at 146-147