Is a judge required to be "comprehensive" on all aspects of the evidence at trial?

Ontario, Canada


The following excerpt is from R. v. Wolf, 2004 CanLII 34356 (ON SC):

Binnie J. in Sheppard at paragraph 23 noted: “The absence of reasons, however, does not necessarily indicate an absence of such concentration”. This view is consistent with the courts dictum in Burns, where it was noted that trial judges are presumed to know the law and thus are not required to comment explicitly on all aspects of the evidence at trial. Sheppard, supra at paragraph 23 R v. Burns 1994 CanLII 127 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656 at p. 664.

Other Questions


Does a trial judge have to detail every aspect of her decision if she prefers some evidence over other evidence? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a trial judge required to review all the evidence at trial? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the trial judge reviewed the evidence at a jury trial? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the trial judge considered the totality of evidence at trial for impaired driving? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based on evidence filed without using Rule 20? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for determining if a motion is a genuine issue requiring a trial based only on the evidence in the Motion Record? (Ontario, Canada)
Is the order of a trial judge dispensing with a jury during the course of the trial consistently treated as an exercise of the exercise of his discretion? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the role of a judge as a gatekeeper for expert evidence at trial? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will a trial judge consider corroborating evidence in a sexual assault case? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there any evidence of judicial bias in the trial judge's reasons relied on by ING? (Ontario, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.