The Importance of a Jury and the Need for Clear Reasons

“Trial by jury is an institution unique to common law countries. It is more than a mere incident of criminal procedure. It has been described as a pillar of the Constitution and praised as a palladium of liberty. ” – Regina v. Bryant, 1984 CanLII 2026 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/g187z>.

In the recent decision Penate v. Martoglio, 2024 ONCA 166, Justice Tulloch of the Ontario Court of Appeal addresses the importance of a civil jury trial in the context of a medical malpractice case. In Penate v Martoglio, the plaintiff Penate suffered a serious brain injury at birth, which led to lifelong consequences. As a result, the plaintiffs sued the defendant doctors, hospital, and nurses. The matter was heard by a judge and a jury.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge discharged the jury and made a decision on liability instead of the jury. The trial judge ruled in favour of the defendants and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed the trial judge’s decision, citing the failure to provide adequate reasons in discharging the jury. The Court of Appeal agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered a new trial.

In handling the appeal, Justice Tulloch explained that the right to a jury trial (subject to certain exceptions) is a fundamental substantive right, “meaning that the justice system protects it because it is inherently important”. Due to its importance, discharging a jury requires a judge to provide adequate reasons. At para 21, Justice Tulloch writes that “Adequate reasons are not merely a precondition for deference but are also a basic entitlement of every litigant…by demonstrating that the trial judge has considered their arguments and taken the time to explain why they lost, thereby increasing the likelihood that losing litigants will feel that they were treated fairly and appropriately”.

At para 22, Justice Tulloch provides more clarity. “Conclusory reasons are not adequate. Reasons cannot merely repeat stock phrases of what a trial judge is expected to do … [they must also address] the parties’ key arguments and the key, live issues in the case and making any necessary findings concerning those issues…Reasons that merely repeat the legal standard and state a bottom-line conclusion are inconsistent with the need for judicial decision-makers to justify their decisions to the parties and the public: Vavilov, at para. 79; Bruno, at para. 14.”

The trial judge did not provide the Penates with the reasons they deserved. Justice Tulloch wrote that the trial judge’s reasons did not explain which of the Plaintiffs’ counsels’ comments were prejudicial and why a corrective instruction was a not enough as a remedy. “While the respondents argue that this Court should defer to the trial judge’s decision because it is discretionary and subject to a deferential standard of review, those factors do not lower the bar but instead reinforce the need for adequate reasons that the parties can understand and this Court can meaningfully review”.