|
Evidence - Witness - General. 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.
|
