Reasons issued after short trials need not precisely lay out every issue

R. v. Eastgaard, 2011 ABCA 152 is a useful case in clarifying the need (or lack thereof) for extensive reasons following a short trial. Basically, the reasons have to be clear enough that the parties can understand what happened but they do not have to set out every issue in complete detail, especially if the information can be gleaned from the rest of the trial:

[12] Reasons issued at the conclusion of, or very shortly after, relatively short trials need not precisely lay out every issue so long as a path to the result can be determined. That path can include argument, exchanges between counsel during argument, and observations made by the trial judge during argument and the trial.