What are the reasons for judgment in an appeal?

Reluctant as I am, I would allow this appeal, set aside the trial judgment and order a new trial. It is conceivable that the result will be the same. A failure, however, to properly articulate how credibility concerns are resolved, constitutes a reversible error. I agree with the skepticism expressed by Doherty J.A. at para. 4 in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Neinstein 2010 ONCA 193 (CanLII) about the merits of arguments claiming that reasons for judgment are inadequate. Nevertheless, when the reasons are “so inadequate as to foreclose meaningful appellate review,” an error in law is committed and a new trial is required. Because, here, credibility was such an important consideration for the trial judge, there ought to have been some explanation for the conclusion the trial judge seems to have reached in that regard. To simply say, “In assessing her testimony, I have concluded that she is a strong-willed person, that she is used to running the show and is autocratic” or that “She is a person who regards criticism of her role as chairperson of SNCHA to be an attack upon herself rather than as a criticism on the manner in which the tourism board was functioning”, does not suffice.