“As this court has frequently observed, the assessment of witness credibility is an inexact science, impossible to articulate with precision. For example, a witness may impress the court with the clarity, or common sense, of their narrative but be unreliable because the objective facts are inconsistent with that narrative. Or a witness may be so interested in the outcome of the case that they are incapable of making an admission or facilitating the disclosure of information that they perceive as helpful to the other party or harmful to them. These affect the weight to be given to that evidence. There is, quite simply, no one-size-fits-all template. In Al-Sajee v. Tawfic, 2019 ONSC 3857 by Chappel J. observed that,
…the judge is not required by law to believe or disbelieve a witness’s testimony in its entirety. On the contrary, they may accept none, part or all of a witness’s evidence, and may also attachdifferent weight to different parts of a witness’s evidence (see R. v. D.R., 1996 CanLII 207 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291 (S.C.C.), at paragraph 93; R. v. J.H., 2005 CanLII 253 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 39 (Ont. C.A.) at paragraphs 51-56; McIntyre v. Veinot, 2016 NSSC 8 (S.C.), at para. 22).”