« Analyse des témoignages » : différence entre les versions
m Remplacement de texte : « 51t6 » par « 51t7 » |
m Remplacement de texte : « 1frqw » par « 1frqx » |
||
| Ligne 524 : | Ligne 524 : | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Le bénéfice du doute doit être accordé au témoin.<ref> | Le bénéfice du doute doit être accordé au témoin.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Tran| | {{CanLIIRP|Tran|1frqx|1994 CanLII 56 (CSC)|[1994] 2 RCS 951}}{{perSCC|J.C. Lamer}} (7:0){{Atp|248}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Ligne 892 : | Ligne 892 : | ||
Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd ed.) (Toronto: Butterworths, 1999), at s. 16.25 <br> | Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd ed.) (Toronto: Butterworths, 1999), at s. 16.25 <br> | ||
{{CanLIIRx|Singh|gs2vx|2016 ONSC 3688 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}<br> | {{CanLIIRx|Singh|gs2vx|2016 ONSC 3688 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Tran| | {{CanLIIRP|Tran|1frqx|1994 CanLII 56 (CSC)|[1994] 2 RCS 951}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} (7:0){{atp|248}} (court suggests that testifying through interpreter should have “benefit of the doubt” with respect to inconsistencies)<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|X(J)|fslbv|2012 ABCA 69 (CanLII)|524 AR 123}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{AtL|fslbv|13}} ("Some confusion …[is] inevitable" and can result in a record that is “is often unclear”)<br> | {{CanLIIRP|X(J)|fslbv|2012 ABCA 69 (CanLII)|524 AR 123}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{AtL|fslbv|13}} ("Some confusion …[is] inevitable" and can result in a record that is “is often unclear”)<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Zewari|1knsd|2005 CanLII 16078 (ON CA)|[2005] OJ No 1953 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0){{AtL|1knsd|4}} (trial judge properly averted to difficulty in evaluating credibility when an interpreter is required)<br> | {{CanLIIRP|Zewari|1knsd|2005 CanLII 16078 (ON CA)|[2005] OJ No 1953 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0){{AtL|1knsd|4}} (trial judge properly averted to difficulty in evaluating credibility when an interpreter is required)<br> | ||