July 21, 2026 – Assessing Credibility and Reliability

“I turn first to the law respecting the assessment of credibility and reliability, which I reviewed in detail in M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207 (S.C.J.), at paras. 48 to 49.   The concepts of credibility and reliability are related but distinct.  Shergill J. provided an excellent description of the differences in Lawson v. Hartt, 2022 BCSC 2087 (S.C.), as follows:

9      Credibility and reliability are related but distinct concepts. Reliability relates to the accuracy of the testimony of a witness. It engages consideration of the ability of a witness to accurately observe, recall, and recount the events in issue. Credibility centers on the honesty of the witness. It involves an assessment of the trustworthiness of their evidence, based on their veracity or sincerity: Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398 at para. 186, aff’d 2012 BCCA 296, leave to appeal to SCC ref’d, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 392 (7 March 2013).

10      A witness who is not telling the truth is not providing reliable evidence. However, the reverse is not the case – a credible witness may still give unreliable evidence: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56 at para. 41, referencing R. v. Morrissey, [1995] O.J. No. 639 (QL) at para. 33, 1995 CanLII 3498 (O.N.C.A.).

11      Sometimes an honest witness will be trying their best to tell the truth, and will believe the truth of what they are relating, but nevertheless be mistaken in their recollection: H.C. at para. 43.

Assessing the credibility and reliability of witnesses is not an exact science; rather, it is a challenging and holistic undertaking, the outcome of which is often difficult to explain in precise terms (R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17 (S.C.C.), at para. 20).  The complexity of the task is heightened by the fact that the judge is not required by law to believe or disbelieve a witness’ testimony in its entirety.  On the contrary, they may accept none, part or all of a witness’ evidence, and may also attach different weight to different parts of a witness’ evidence (see R. v. D.R., 1996 CanLII 207 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291 (S.C.C.), at para. 93; R. v. Boutros, 2018 ONCA 275 (C.A.)).  Notwithstanding these challenges, the caselaw has identified numerous factors as being helpful in weighing and assessing the credibility and reliability of witnesses.  These considerations include the following:

1. 1. 1. 1. 1.    Were there inconsistencies in the witness’ evidence at trial, or between what the witness stated at trial and what they said on other occasions, whether under oath or not?  Inconsistencies on minor matters are normal and generally do not affect the credibility of the witness, but where the inconsistency involves a material matter about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken, the inconsistency can demonstrate carelessness with the truth (R. v. G.(M.)(1994), 1994 CanLII 8733 (ON CA), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 347 (C.A.), at para. 23; R. v. D.A., 2018 ONCA 612 (C.A.), at paras. 11-21).
            2.    Was there a logical flow to the evidence?
            3.    Were there inconsistencies between the witness’ testimony and the documentary evidence?
            4.    Were there inconsistencies between the witness’ evidence and that of other credible witnesses?
            5.    Is there other independent evidence that confirms or contradicts the witness’ testimony?
            6.    Did the witness have an interest in the outcome, or were they personally connected to either party?
            7.    Did the witness have a motive to deceive, fabricate evidence or embellish upon it?
            8.    Did the witness have the opportunity and ability to observe the factual matters about which they testified?
            9.    Did they have a sufficient power of recollection to provide the court with an accurate account?
            10. Were there any external suggestions made at any time that may have altered the witness’ memory?
            11. Did the evidence appear to be inherently improbable and implausible?  In this regard, the question is whether the testimony is in harmony with “the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions” (Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII (BC CA), 1951 CarswellBC 133 (B.C.C.A.), at para 9).
            12. Was the evidence provided in a candid and straightforward manner, or was the witness evasive, strategic, hesitant, or biased?
            13. Where appropriate, was the witness capable of making concessions not favourable to their position, or were they generally self-serving?
            14. Consideration may also be given to the demeanor of the witness, including their sincerity and use of language.  However, this should be done with caution.  As the Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized in R. v. Norman, (1993), 1993 CanLII 3387 (ON CA), 16 O.R. (3d) 295 (C.A.), at para. 55, an assessment of credibility based on demeanour alone is insufficient where there are many significant inconsistencies in a witness’ evidence (see also R. v. Mah, 2002 NSCA 99 (C.A.), at paras. 70-75). The courts have also cautioned against preferring the testimony of the better actor in court, and conversely, misinterpreting an honest witness’ poor presentation as deceptive (R. v. Jeng, 2004 BCCA 464 (C.A.), at paras. 53-54).”

            Khan v. Khan, 2024 ONSC 4045 (CanLII) at 7-8