Writing frequently in her ruling about the social realities of the two individuals involved generally, the Supreme Court Justice, The Honourable Justice Fleming, did pay specific attention in her contextual analysis to the demeanor and behaviour of each in the courtroom. [...] She provided great detail and consideration of how the expert testimony, which assessed each of the two parties’ behaviour and demeanor, informed her own determination of the key issue of the credibility of each. [...] As will be seen, and setting the foundation for the two cases, in the BC Supreme Court case (see Part 1), the Justice did in fact delve deeply into the social lived realities of the two parties in order to make accurate assessment of their credibility and, hence, the credibility of their evidence. [...] The appellant claims the trial judge subjected his evidence to more rigorous scrutiny than that of the respondent; impermissibly relied on hearsay and similar fact evidence; erred in assessing the cause of the respondent’s psychological issues; and erred in awarding the respondent partial special costs. [...] While the anonymization of the parties involved formed the major issue for the appeal, most of the other findings (“the lived realities”) from the Supreme Court case are referenced.
- Pages
- 8
- Published in
- Canada
