6
56621 B.C. Ltd. v. David Moerman Painting Ltd.
Page 39
and explained he was in shock. He does not recall what they did, what was said, or
what anyone asked him.
[
112] The following morning Mr. Dornian called Mr. Moerman and had a brief
conversation in which he advised him about the Fire. Mr. Dornian confirmed that he
and the rest of the Moerman Stainers met at Mr. Moerman’s residence on May 18,
2
016 to discuss what had happened. He confirmed that Mr. Moerman wrote notes
on his computer, but Mr. Dornian had no opportunity to review those notes after the
meeting. Mr. Dornian could not recall the specifics of the conversation, just that it
was a discussion of what had occurred the previous day, and that he was truthful
and accurate in what he said at that meeting.
F.
MR. DORNIAN’S CREDIBILITY AND RELIABILITY
[
113] Credibility and reliability are separate concepts. Credibility relates to honesty,
whereas reliability relates to accuracy.
[
114] The well accepted factors to be considered when assessing credibility were
summarized by Justice Dillon in Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398 at
para. 186, aff’d 2012 BCCA 296, as follows:
Credibility involves an assessment of the trustworthiness of a witness’
testimony based upon the veracity or sincerity of a witness and the accuracy
of the evidence that the witness provides (Raymond v. Bosanquet (Township)
(
1919), 59 S.C.R. 452, 50 D.L.R. 560 (S.C.C.)). The art of assessment
involves examination of various factors such as the ability and opportunity to
observe events, the firmness of his memory, the ability to resist the influence
of interest to modify his recollection, whether the witness’ evidence
harmonizes with independent evidence that has been accepted, whether the
witness changes his testimony during direct and cross-examination, whether
the witness’ testimony seems unreasonable, impossible, or unlikely, whether
a witness has a motive to lie, and the demeanour of a witness generally
(Wallace v. Davis, [1926] 31 O.W.N. 202 (Ont. H.C.); Faryna v. Chorny,
[
1952] 2 D.L.R. [354] (B.C.C.A.) [Faryna]; R. v. S.(R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484
at para.128 (S.C.C.)). Ultimately, the validity of the evidence depends on
whether the evidence is consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as
a whole and shown to be in existence at the time (Faryna at para. 356).
[
115] In the context of determining the credibility of interested witnesses, it is not
enough to only consider personal demeanour, but rather, the witness’ evidence must
be subject to an examination of its consistencies with the probabilities of the