“It is not the role of appellate courts to second-guess the weight assigned the items of evidence by the trier: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, para. 23. In particular, the fact that an alternative factual finding could be reached based on a different ascription of weight by an appellate court does not mean that a palpable and overriding error has been made: Salomon v. Matte-Thompson, 2019 SCC 14 at para. 33. It is the trier of fact’s discretion to determine what areas of the evidence should be included in their reasons. The trier is not obliged to reconcile every frailty in the evidence: R. v. Channani, 2020 ONSC 7168, para. 30. Failure to mention some aspects of the evidence does not constitute an error, if the trier has grappled with the substance of the live issues. R. v. T.C., 2020 ONCA 469 para. 25.
Okafor v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 6332 (CanLII) at 36