When Are the Reasons Provided by a Judge Insufficient?
In Willick v. Willard, 2023 ONCA 792, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs who argued, among other things, that the trial judge erred in law by failing to provide sufficient reasons.
This was a complex medical malpractice case. On March 10, 2014, Brian Willick had fallen into a basement, after a stair had collapsed beneath him. The defendant Dr. Peter Willard treated him and subsequently discharged him. Dr. Willard referred Mr. Willick to his family doctor, the defendant Dr. Michael Csanadi, for follow up treatment. Tragically, on March 24, 2014, Mr. Willick passed away due to blood loss caused by a rupture of a subscapsular hematoma in his spleen. His family sued the respondents (i.e. the defendants) for medical negligence.
The trial judge had dismissed the case. Justice Ramsay had found that Mr. Willick had not suffered a detectable injury when Dr. Willard treated him. Additionally, Justice Ramsay also found that Dr. Csanadi’s decision to clear Mr. Willick to return to work was appropriate.
The Applicable Test
The Ontario Court of Appeal referred to the leading case of R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869,[1] where Justice Binnie provided the following test:
The trial judge’s duty is satisfied by reasons which are sufficient to serve the purpose for which the duty is imposed, i.e., a decision which, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, is reasonably intelligible to the parties and provides the basis for meaningful appellate review of the correctness of the trial judge’s decision.
A court of appeal is well-positioned to undertake the above assessment, and failing the above test is an error of law.
The appellant has the obligation to show that there was such an error.[2] Specifically, as Justice Lauwers outlined, the appellant must demonstrate that the “the flaw in the reasons must render doubtful both the trial judge’s chain of reasoning and the outcome of the case.”[3]
If the reasons are deficient, the court of appeal can order a new trial. This is a case-specific assessment based on the interests of justice.
The Positions of the Parties
The appellants argued that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient, particularly with respect to two grounds: 1) the specific standards of care for Dr. Peter Willard, a general surgeon, and for Dr. Michael Csanadi, a family physician; and 2) the issue of causation, as the appellants maintained that the trial judge’s conclusion that Mr. Willick “was beyond help” was “unacceptably vague” and thus speculative.
The respondents argued that the reasons were sufficient and that the medical literature was properly put before the trial judge, allowing the finding on causation.
Disposition
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs fixed in the amount of $25,000. It held that the appellants had not met the high threshold required to demonstrate that the trial judge made an actual error or that the reasons frustrate appellate review.
In reaching the above conclusion, the Court of Appeal considered the following:
- Once a trial judge determines that the defendant(s) did not breach the applicable standard(s) of care, there is no act or omission to identify, legally, as the cause of the death or damages.
- A judge’s reasoning need not be perfect; it must merely allow for the parties to appreciate the reasoning that leads to the conclusion and thus allows for appellate review.
- Lastly, an appellate court must not review a trial judge’s reasons with an overly critical eye.
Although the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, Justice Lauwers provided an important footnote highlighting that while the trial judge’s reasons “were, once supplemented by the record, adequate for the purposes of appellate review, they were inappropriately terse.” Justice Lauwers emphasized that the reasons provided by the trial judge, “did not treat the appellants’ claim with the dignity it deserved, and one can understand how the appellants would, incorrectly, conclude from the reasons that the trial judge had not taken sufficient care to understand the case.”
As with all litigation that goes to trial, there are winners, and there are losers. Justice Lauwers pointed out in the footnote that “[t]he primary audience for a trial judge to keep in mind is the losing party, who is entitled to be treated with due respect, and to know why the decision was reached and why the proffered evidence and arguments were rejected.”
Takeaway
The takeaway from this decision is that a court of appeal will be reluctant to intervene with a trial judge’s decision where the court can appreciate how the trial judge reached his or her conclusion. Therefore, the parties should present the strongest possible case at the trial level to hopefully succeed and avoid any appeals.
[1] 2002 SCC 26 at para 55.
[2] 2023 ONCA 792 at para 58.
[3] Ibid.