Delay compromises authenticity of reasons: R v Qita, 2026 ONCA 554

The extraordinary delay between the trial judge's bottom-line verdicts and written reasons rebutted the presumption that the reasons reflected the actual path to conviction, creating a reasonable apprehension that they were an after-the-fact justification. As a result, the convictions could not stand and a new trial was ordered: R v Qita, 2026 ONCA 554