American Judges Association
Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association
Accessibility Remediation
If you are unable to use this item in its current form due to accessibility barriers, you may request remediation through our remediation request form.
Date of this Version
2021
Document Type
Article
Citation
Court Review - Volume 57
Abstract
Canadian trial judges have been encouraged to rely upon “reason, common sense and life experience” in making credibility assessments (see R. v. Delmas, 2020 ABCA 152, para. 31, aff’d 2020 SCC 39). However, a number of recent Canadian Court of Appeal decisions have concluded that this use of common sense has, at times, caused Canadian trial judges to stray into stereotypical reasoning, rendering their credibility-based judgments invalid. In very succinct terms, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal recently indicated that “[r]eliance on a stereotype in assessment of credibility is impermissible and an error of law” (see R. v. Stanton, 2021 NSCA 57, para. 84).
Comments
Used by permission.