How much deference does the Court give to the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Wei v. Cao, 2009 BCCA 268 (CanLII):
Appellate deference is heightened when the trial judge’s conclusions rest on findings of fact and credibility. This principle was recently affirmed in a matrimonial context in Rick v. Brandsema, 2009 SCC 10:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Can a summary trial judge make a finding that a matter is not suitable for disposition by way of summary trial during the hearing of the summary trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a finding that a judge must not make a finding which would directly contradict a finding previously made by another judge? (British Columbia, Canada)
If a trial judge's finding of credibility is to depend solely on which person he thinks made the better appearance of sincerity in the witness box, what is the test for credibility? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does an appellate court have to defer to the treatment of the evidence by the trial judge? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a judge interfere with a trial judge's findings of fact? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a trial judge's failure to give reasons sufficient to determine that the trial judge erred in appreciation of a relevant issue or application of the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts in BC considered credibility and the impact on medical evidence in assessing credibility and credibility? (British Columbia, Canada)
What factors will the Court consider in deciding whether it would be unjust to find that a summary trial is appropriate to consider the issues before deciding whether to proceed with a conventional trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for deference to a trial judge's findings of fact? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an appellate court "reconsider" evidence presented at trial when there is a reasoned belief that the trial judge must have forgotten or misconceived the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
