Judges presumed to know the law

Cook v. Podgorski, 2013 NSCA 47 holds:

[43]   The fact that the judge does not refer to the Halliday case does not mean that he made an error of law. Halliday was argued before the judge. He is presumed to know the law and there is no need for him to recite the case or to explicitly set out the principles in it. The real question is whether correct principles were applied:Lawrence v. Toronto Humane Society, 212 O.A.C. 263 at ¶ 59; Hug v Bliss, 112 B.C.A.C. 242 at ¶ 12.