“Inadequacy of reasons does not provide a free-standing right of appeal. Rather, an appellant who argues insufficiency of reasons must show not only a deficiency in the reasons, but that the deficiency caused prejudice to the exercise of the right to appeal: see R. v. W.O., 2020 ONCA 392, 454 D.L.R. (4th) 54, at para. 13, aff’d 2021 SCC 8, 454 D.L.R. (4th) 51; Dovbush v. Mouzitchka, 2016 ONCA 381, 399 D.L.R. (4th) 69, at para. 22.
The question in every case is whether the reasons provide the basis for meaningful appellate review of the correctness of the trial judge’s decision. Trial judges are not held to an abstract standard of perfection. In evaluating a trial judge’s reasons, appellate courts must consider the time constraints and general press of business in the court: R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 55.
In the context of busy family law trial courts, there must be a high bar for the insufficiency of reasons. This high bar is mandated by the primary objectives of the Family Law Rules captured in r. 2(3). This rule emphasizes saving expense and time, dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity, and giving the case appropriate court resources while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases.”