Le comportement d'un témoin lors de son témoignage est une considération légitime dans l'appréciation de sa crédibilité

R v Giroux, 2017 ABCA 270

Lien vers la décision

[25]           Reasons for credibility findings should be read as a whole, in their entirety and in context, and with a view to determining whether the decision is legally sustainable. See: R. v. T.R., 2016 ABCA 355 at para. 10; R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17 at para. 19; and R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51 at para. 56.

[26]           Demeanour during testimony is a legitimate consideration when assessing credibility. Over-reliance is an error of law. Both verbal and non-verbal communication are relevant. As did Renke, J. in R. v. J.A.B., 2016 ABQB 362 at para. 20, I endorse the following summary of the proper approach to credibility assessment on the basis of demeanour as set out by Ferguson, J. at para. 78 in R. v. Storey, 2010 NBQB 86:

No longer are judges encouraged to consider demeanour evidence to be a determining or even central tool in credibility assessment.  R. v. R.G.L. 2004 CanLII 32143 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 1944 (O.C.A.); R. v. F. (S.) (2007), 2007 PESCAD 17 (CanLII), 223 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (P.E.I.S.C.A.D.) and also R. v. T.E. 2007 ONCA 891 (CanLII), [2007] O.J. No. 4952 (O.C.A.). Rather, the proper approach is to consider the evidence of a particular witness against the backdrop of the rest of the evidence led or other evidence tendered, searching for connectors that may not necessarily rise to the level of legal corroboration between witnesses, the other evidence tendered or a combination of the two in deciding what worth should be attributed to it. In the final analysis it becomes a matter of determining the veracity of the evidence utilizing the age old tools of logic, reason and common sense in measuring the probability, if it is deducible from the evidence, that the witness or witnesses’ honesty on the central issue or issues is assailable.

[27]           Because the trier of fact enjoys the advantage of observing witness demeanour at trial, such credibility assessments are generally entitled to deference upon appellate review. In R. v. Zaritec Industries Limited, 1975 CanLII 941 (AB CA), the Court stated, and I accept, that the greatest weight is to be accorded to the finding by the lower Court which has seen and heard the witnesses.