|
Evidence - Witness - General. R. v. J.P. [inconsistencies]
In R. v. J.P. (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal, here considering 'inconsistencies' in witness testimony:[16] The trial judge’s analysis reveals no error. His assessment of the appellant’s credibility and reliability are entitled to deference: R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7, 489 D.L.R. (4th) 385, at paras. 81-82. The trial judge, who was aware of the defence position that the addition of details was in response to the Crown’s specific questions, was clearly (and in our view, justifiably) not persuaded by the argument that the differences in the appellant’s evidence were due to the way in which he was questioned. As the appellant’s counsel acknowledged, the omission from one part of a witness’s evidence of a material fact included later can be viewed as an inconsistency: see R. v. Hill, 2015 ONCA 616, 339 O.A.C. 90, at para. 45. The trial judge reasonably concluded that the appellant’s credibility was undermined by the inconsistencies between his accounts on direct and cross-examination and the fact that the appellant’s elaborations were always seemingly favorable to him or to his position that he only engaged in consensual sex with A.E. We see no error in the trial judge’s conclusion that this was an important factor (although not the only factor) that led him to reject the appellant’s testimony. . R. v. Beauvais
In R. v. Beauvais (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered a basic of witness evidence law:[18] It is well-established that a trier of fact can reject some, none, or all of a witness’s testimony: see e.g. R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152, at para. 10; R. v. Powell, 2021 ONCA 271, at para. 40. ... . 9725440 Canada Inc. v. Vijayakumar
In 9725440 Canada Inc. v. Vijayakumar (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal noted that the court could accomodate a witness' time zone differences:[44] That it may have been difficult for Mr. Lin to have attended trial should not have been the end of the analysis. There was no explanation as to why Mr. Lin’s family could not have assisted him to use Zoom or other technology or why he could not have accessed such technology through a lawyer’s office or a court office. There was no dispute that Mr. Lin had access to a computer and that his wife and children were computer literate. With respect to the time difference, the court is able to accommodate time differences, for example, by beginning the proceedings earlier or later than usual: see, e.g., Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc., 2020 FC 860, at para. 32; R. v. Belem, 2017 ONSC 2213, at para. 11. Further, it would not have been necessary for Mr. Lin to find an interpreter in China to assist with his evidence; he could have sought a court-appointed interpreter here who could have assisted through Zoom or telephone. Finally, there was no evidence that Mr. Lin was ill or otherwise unavailable to attend trial.
|
