Sufficiency of reasons

R. v. Wilson, 2010 ONCA 849 is another decision dealing with the sufficiency of reasons.  The Court deals with how much detail is necessary in considering inconsistencies:

 

 

[4]               As this court has held on many occasions, a trial judge is not required to address every alleged inconsistency.  Rather, he or she is only required to give such detail as the evidentiary record and the dynamics of the case mandate.  The trial judge in this case was aware that drugs and alcohol were consumed, and he noted that while there were inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant and her two friends, he found that the inconsistencies were not material.  He committed no error in his analysis.