L'appréciation de la crédibilité d'un témoin en regard de son seul comportement vu par la Cour d'Appel

R. c. Hamann, 2002 CanLII 3187 (QC CA)

Lien vers la décision

[25]           Dans l'arrêt R. c. Norman, (1993) 1993 CanLII 3387 (ON CA), 87 C.C.C. (3^d) 153, le juge Finlayson écrit, aux pages 173-174:

I do not think that an assessment of credibility based on demeanour alone is good enough in a case where there are so many significant inconsistencies.   The issue is not merely whether the complainant sincerely believes her evidence to be true; it is also whether this evidence is reliable.   Accordingly, here demeanour and credibility are not the only issues.   The reliability of the evidence is what is paramount.   So far as Mrs. Goebel is concerned, her evidence is inherently hard to credit, and should have been subjected to closer analysis.   For the purposes of this case, I adopt what was said by O'Halloran J.A., speaking for the British Columbia Court of Appeal inFaryna v. Chorny, reflex, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 at p. 357, 4 W.W.R. (N.S.) 171 (B.C.C.A.):

The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth.   The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions.   In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its 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.

[26]           Je partage tout à fait ce point de vue.