Citation and Court Information
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
LEE-ANN McDONNELL
Plaintiff/Appellant
– and –
PAUL WILLIAM HALLIGAN
Defendant/Respondent
David Adams, for the Plaintiff/Appellant
Garth Allan, for the Defendant/Respondent
HEARD: February 13, 2015 at Kingston
APPEAL DECISION
TRANMER, J.
Introduction and Background
1The Appellant/Plaintiff Lee-Ann McDonnell appeals from the decision of Deputy Judge K. Cartwright of the Superior Court of Justice, Small Claims Court at Kingston, Ontario, dated September 20, 2013.
2The Plaintiff’s claim was for $10,000, which she alleged the Defendant had promised to pay to her by doing work on her home. She also claimed the sum of $3,000, which she said he agreed to pay to her as an advance on the sum of $20,000 which he had agreed to pay to her as part of their separation agreement. That sum of $20,000 remained unpaid as of the trial date.
3The issue on this appeal is the sufficiency of the reasons given by the learned Deputy Judge for her reasons in dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. The trial consisted of the testimony of the Plaintiff and of the Defendant and seven filed exhibits. The Plaintiff was represented by a paralegal. The Defendant represented himself. Following the evidence and submissions, the learned Deputy Judge gave her decision orally. The decision included two paragraphs concerning background between these two parties and their dealings. The substance of the decision was as follows, “Now the note (the $20,000), which doesn’t come due until next year, was besides this, and that’s fine, I don’t have any quarrel with that. But because the Plaintiff has the onus of proof, I’m not satisfied that there was ever any solid agreement as to how much this extra work was to be and I’m also satisfied that the work was simply to be done out of the goodness of his heart by the plaintiff (likely means defendant).” She also adds in the next and final paragraph, “…The work that at times Mr. Halligan seems to have promised with the best of intentions has simply never gotten done.”
The Law
4The law governing the issue of sufficiency of reasons is clear. In Weatherford Canda v. Corlac 2011 FCA 228, the Federal Court of Appeal put it this way, “the reasons must show that the judge has seized the substance of the matter…An appellate court should adopt a deferential stance… The critical question is whether the trial judge’s reasons considered in the context of the evidentiary record, the live issues as they emerged at trial and the submissions of counsel deprive the Appellant of the right to meaningful appellate review, ...” (para. 87).
5That court quoted from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, “where a case turns largely on determination of credibility, the sufficiency of the reasons should be considered in light of the deference afforded to trial judges on credibility findings. Rarely will the deficiencies in the trial judge’s credibility analysis, as expressed in the reasons for judgment, merit intervention on appeal.”
6That court also quoted from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. REM, 2008 SCC 51, “There is no general requirement that reasons be so detailed that they allow an appeal court to retry the entire case on appeal. There is no need to prove that the trial judge was alive to and considered all of the evidence or answered each and every argument of counsel.”
Analysis
7The issue in the case before the learned deputy judge was credibility. The Plaintiff claimed there was an agreement between the parties that the Defendant would pay the money to her. The Defendant denied any such agreement. Filed into evidence was a transcript of telephone conversations between the parties which had been tape-recorded by the Plaintiff. In these transcripts, while the Defendant did not admit to making the agreements alleged by the Plaintiff, he did not deny any such agreements and in fact, he states that he is going to do the work. He also states that he did not pay the $3,000 because he did not get his pay raise.
8It is understood and acknowledged that the Small Claims Court handles the largest volume of civil litigation within the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. On a daily basis, Deputy Judges face long lists and many cases involve parties who represent themselves. There is very limited time for a deputy judge to hear each case assigned, consider the evidence, the submissions and applicable legal principles and then deliver a comprehensive decision. Our deputy judges do an excellent job in fairly and justly managing and deciding the large caseloads assigned to them.
9Reasons for a decision are not only important for appellate review purposes, but are very important to the litigants’ understanding as to how and why the decision was made in their case.
10In this case, the Deputy Judge’s assessment of the credibility of each party was the essential component of the decision. She had the oral testimony from the parties and the exhibits to consider and in particular, the transcripts from the telephone conversations. I recognize that great deference is owed to our deputy judges. However, in this case, the brief reasons are statements of conclusion rather than an analysis as to what led to those conclusions in respect of the $10,000 claim. There are no reasons, and no analysis with respect to the $3,000 claim.
Conclusion
11In my view, the legal principles that are binding on me, require that this appeal be allowed and the matter remitted for a new trial.
Costs
12If the parties cannot agree upon the costs of this appeal, written submissions may be made limited to two pages within the next two weeks.
Honourable Mr. Justice Gary W. Tranmer
Released: February 18, 2015
CITATION: McDonnell v. Halligan, 2015 ONSC 1091
COURT FILE NO.: DC-13-529-AP
DATE: 2015 Feb 16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
LEE-ANN McDONNELL
Plaintiff/Appellant
– and –
PAUL WILLIAM HALLIGAN
Defendant/Respondent
appeal decision
Tranmer, J.
Released: February 18, 2015