In R v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190, the majority decided that an appeal court may find a verdict unreasonable based on insufficient reasons and order a new trial. Fish J., for the majority on this issue, stated at para. 98: I hasten to add that appellate courts, in determining whether a trial judge’s verdict is unreasonable, cannot substitute their own view of the facts for that of the judge or intervene on the ground that the judge’s reasons ought to have been more fully or more clearly expressed. That is beyond the purview of an appellate court…But where reasons do exist, a verdict cannot be reasonable within the meaning of s. 686(1)(a)(i) if it is made to rest on findings of fact that are demonstrably incompatible, as in this case, with evidence that is neither contradicted by other evidence nor rejected by the judge. [Citations omitted]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.