{"id":8211,"date":"2022-03-25T17:52:07","date_gmt":"2022-03-25T21:52:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/360mediations.com\/en\/?p=8211"},"modified":"2022-03-25T17:52:11","modified_gmt":"2022-03-25T21:52:11","slug":"small-claims-court-trial-decision-set-aside-and-new-trial-ordered-because-of-insufficiency-of-reasons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mail.360mediations.com\/en\/small-claims-court-trial-decision-set-aside-and-new-trial-ordered-because-of-insufficiency-of-reasons\/","title":{"rendered":"Small Claims Court Trial Decision Set-Aside and New Trial Ordered Because of Insufficiency of Reasons"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Often Deputy Judges are placed in a very difficult position because they are pressured on one end to release judgments quickly and ideally immediately following the hearing, juxtaposed against the pressure to release decisions with sufficient reasons, failing which their decisions will be set-aside and a new trial ordered: something that any judge wants to avoid because it is embarrassing, and more importantly, it doesn\u2019t serve the people well.<\/p>\n

In this recent case, the Divisional Court set-aside a Deputy Judge\u2019s decision mainly because the trial decision lacked sufficient reasons to allow the parties (and the appellate court) to understand why<\/em> or how <\/em>the judge came to the result.<\/p>\n

The following can be learned from this decision, as it relates to the term \u201csufficient reasons:\u201d<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The judgments in Small Claims Court do not have to contain a thorough review of every fact or legal principal as would be expected in a Superior Court Decision.\u00a0 To demand this level of verse runs counter to the expedient and summary process of the Small Claims Court, and would only serve \u201cto restrict access to justice by unnecessarily imparting formality and delay into a legal process that is designed to be informal and efficient<\/em>;\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. The guiding principle is that the judgment must contain two primary features: enough detail to let the reader know what was decided (the \u201cwhat<\/strong>\u201d), and enough detail to let the reader know why the judge came to that conclusion (the “why<\/strong>“). Failing to meet this minimum will leave the reader (including the appellate court) wondering how the decision was made, and this is tantamount to an error in law requiring a new trial;<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. It is not the length of the judgment that counts. Indeed, the Small Claims Court decision under appellate review in this case was rather lengthy \u2013 eight single spaced pages.\u00a0 The problem, however, was that only one-half page was devoted to addressing the result (ie: the analysis).\u00a0 The majority of the text was devoted to providing a summary of the evidence tendered at trial;<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Where there are contradictions in the evidence, including where the judge\u2019s decision is based on findings of credibility, the reasons should address the conflict and explain why one version was chosen over the other. Bald assertions and generalizations are not sufficient for this purpose.\u00a0 An appellate court cannot give deference to a conclusion reached by the Deputy Judge if that conclusion is to be drawn from conflicting evidence and there is no clear analysis as to why some evidence was accepted and other evidence was not.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Given the foregoing, the appellate court concluded that the reasons were not sufficient to permit a meaningful review of the decision: as stated by the court, \u201cthe error in law arises because \u201cthe why<\/em>\u201d is not evident.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The biggest takeaway from this decision is that Deputy Judges still have a difficult task.\u00a0 Albeit their decisions may not have to be as fluid and intensive as what might be expected in a Superior Court ruling, if the layers of the onion are peeled back, the expectation is still nonetheless high, in what is considered a high-volume court, because Deputy Judges cannot avoid the need to:<\/p>\n