In this appeal the court considered whether the written reasons of the trial judge, issued more than two years after the decision was rendered, could be taken as truly reflective of the trial judge’s reasons for acquitting the respondent. Doherty J.A. held that, due to the length of time between the decision and the issuance of reasons, and other factors, the written reasons were not truly reflective of the trial judge's reasons.
Doherty, J.A. applied the principles from R. v. Teskey ([2007] 2 SCR 267), including the rebuttable presumption that the reasons reflect the reasoning that led the judge to her decision. However, he distinguished this case on the facts from Teskey, a case in which written reasons were delayed for 11 months. He also distinguished this case from R. v. Port Chevrolet Oldsmobile Ltd. 2009 BCCA 357, a case with an 18 month delay, because 25 months was a "much longer" period of time, and because the facts in Cunningham, unlike in Port Chevrolet Oldsmobile, were in dispute, increasing the risk that long-delayed written reasons would not reflect the judicial reasoning process.
August 3, 2011
Link to Decision
Rebecca Crangle & Kai Sheffield
*
No comments:
Post a Comment