“Inconsistencies in a witness’s evidence, even absent corroborative evidence, do not open the door to appellate review of a trial judge’s credibility findings: F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, at paras. 70, 72, and 75-76. A trial judge may place less weight on certain evidence and accept other, conflicting evidence that they find more convincing. An appellate court cannot intervene just because it would weigh the evidence differently and arrive at alternative factual findings: Salomon v. Matte-Thompson, 2019 SCC 14, [2019] 1 S.C.R. 729, at para. 33; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 58.
Moreover, a trial judge’s credibility findings attract heightened deference: R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, 71 C.R. (7th) 1, at para. 81; McDougall, at para. 72. A trial judge need not find a witness not credible or unreliable because of inconsistences in the witness’s evidence. If the trial judge was alive to the inconsistencies, assessed the witness’s credibility in the context of the evidence as a whole, and concluded that the witness was credible, absent palpable and overriding error, there is no basis for an appellate court to interfere: McDougall, at paras. 70, 75-76.”