Reasons of trial judges

R. v. O'Brien, 2011 SCC 29, released about 45 minutes ago, yet again affirms the principle that trial judges are not required to do more in reasons than explain how they came to their decision. There is no need to itemize every conceivable issue, argument or thought process. The Court holds:

[17]                          A trial judge has an obligation to demonstrate through his or her reasons how the result was arrived at.  This does not create a requirement to itemize every conceivable issue, argument or thought process.  Trial judges are entitled to have their reasons reviewed based on what they say, not on the speculative imagination of reviewing courts.  As Binnie J. noted in R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 55, trial judges should not be held to some "abstract standard of perfection".

[18]                          The trial judge was entitled to be taken at his word.  His chain of fact, law and logic in this case was impeccable.  I see nothing about his approach that suggests a subconscious subversion of his articulated thoughts.