Is there a difference between a trier of fact and a judge?

A judge, on the other hand, is not similarly limited. Justice Saunders in Crocker v. MacDonald, supra., recognized this distinction in the opportunity for review and consideration by the trier of fact, when he said, "a judge sitting alone . . . would then be free to reserve decision and take whatever time was necessary to analyze the detailed and complicated medical record."

A similar observation was made by Justice Grant in Corkum v. Sawatsky, [1992] N. S. J. No. 156, when at p. 4, he observed: Civil juries in this province consists of seven sequestered persons. They are sequestered until they render their findings. They take the exhibits with them, which in this case will include the various expert reports. They may or may not have taken notes. This is in contrast to a judge who may reserve her/his decision and consider it over whatever period of time is convenient and necessary.