Protracted and tortuous reasons can be insufficient

R. v. Geddes, 2011 MBCA 44 deals with the sufficiency of a judge's reasons in an unusual context.

Here the Court found the reasons were too long and complex. As a result, they were insufficient.

Some might recall that there is no requirement for perfection in judges' reasons. Moreover, as the Supreme Court noted in Sheppard 2002 SCC 26:

"The appellate court is not given the power to intervene simply because it thinks the trial court did a poor job of expressing itself" (para. 26).

Some might ask if the requirement that reasons be clear and concise, but not too short or too long, goes a long way to demanding perfection of language from busy trial judges.

In any event, the Court notes:

17 Added to this problem is the fact that, in my view, taken as a whole, I consider the judge's reasons to be insufficient. For such a short and uncomplicated evidentiary basis, the analysis is unnecessarily protracted and tortuous, making it virtually incomprehensible. ...