COURT FILE NO.: 587/06

DATE: 20071002

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

B E T W E E N:

GALLOP

A. Rimer, for the Appellant

Appellant

• and -

WALLAY JAEGAR AND SUPERGLOW

S. Freeman, for the Respondent

Respondent

Heard: October 2, 2007

Archibald J.

1The key issue in this case is what is the obligation of a Small Claims Court judge to provide reasons in dismissing a plaintiff’s statement of claim and in granting the defendant’s counterclaim. Do the reasons provided by the Deputy Judge in this case meet the minimum requirements?

2The obligation on a trial judge to provide fulsome reasons may be less onerous in the civil arena that it is in the criminal arena. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s ruling in R. v. Shepherd, is clear that a modicum level of analysis should be provided. Do these reasons meet that threshold? In addition, do the reasons as they now stand provide any insight into how the trial judge ruled on a number of issues which are central to this appeal?

3Neither party in this case has addressed this issue of the adequacy of the reasons of the Deputy Judge.

4Both parties desire additional time to amend their factums. A new date will be set by the Registrar once the parties have addressed the issue of the adequacy of the reasons.

Archibald J.