How have the courts interpreted the findings of an inquiry committee in a finding of negligence?

I am not of the view that the failure to mention some matters in a report automatically demonstrates that the committee failed to consider it. We do not demand such meticulous behaviour of a trial judge. Long established authority, the latest of which is Smith v. Steele, B.C.C.A., 20th January 1988 (not yet reported), says that: [It is submitted] that the trial judge failed to consider all the relevant evidence or misapprehended the evidence. He referred particularly to the engineering report. There is no indication in the reasons for judgment of the trial judge that he failed to consider this evidence, and I must assume that he did consider it. Accordingly, I think there was no merit to the ground of appeal that the trial judge erred in finding negligence … An inquiry committee, in my opinion, stands in a position similar to that of a trial judge, and the fact that a matter is not mentioned ought not automatically to lead to the view that it has not been considered. The members of the panel in the case at bar are all doctors, were legally advised, sat through days of evidence, and wrote or approved over 60 pages of a unanimous report which deals in detail with the evidence and indicates their thought processes. I respectfully disagree with the statements of the trial judge that the omissions he sets out indicate that the committee did not consider the contradictions. Considering the enormous mass of evidence and the care of the committee in considering the facts, I would not overturn the report on that ground. The merits