Adequate Arguments For Appealing On The Basis Of Inadequacy Of Reasons

Appellate courts have commented on an "unfortunate trend" in appeals whereby appellants allege inadequacy of reasons in a lower court's decision in order to add heft to an otherwise weak appeal to the point where such an allegation appears to be "boilerplate" in appeals.¹

In the recent case of Farej v Fellows,² the Court of Appeal for Ontario has provided helpful guidance in assessing whether there is a legitimate basis for appealing on the basis of inadequacy of reasons.

A comment that is made in discussing the relevant legal principles can be used by litigants as a good starting point: There is likely sufficient reasons if a party is able to attack the sufficiency of the evidence, the reasonableness of the factual findings, or allege legal errors in the trial judge's analysis. However, if a party is submitting that they cannot make any effective arguments about potential errors (such as the ones previously mentioned) because the reasons do not provide a