Keeping Up Is Hard to Do:
A Trial Judge’s Reading Blog

R. v. LWT, 2024 ABCA 211, June 19, 2024, at paragraph 7:

We note in this case that the trial judge’s oral reasons were somewhat more comprehensive than the published written reasons; some of her discussion with respect to the complainant’s evidence was omitted from her written reasons. A trial judge may properly edit oral reasons, for example by correcting grammatical errors or adding citations, but a trial judge should not change the substance of what was said, including by removing sentences or paragraphs from the analysis: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc2021 ABCA 16 at para 61R v Vander Leeuw2021 ABCA 61 at para 9; R v CD2021 NUCA 21 at para 14. Both sets of reasons were before us and were available to be considered to assess the trial judge’s decision; however, a member of the public or lawyer might only review the written reasons. The publicly available reasons should reflect the totality of the judge’s oral explanation for her decision.