What is the current state of the law on eye witness identification?

I am aware of the frailties of eye witness identification. The authorities were reviewed in detail by Romilly J. in R. v. Whitman, 2005 BCSC 1574. In The Queen v. Nikolovski, 1996 CanLII 158 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197 Cory J. discussed the problems of identification evidence at ¶ 19: …The courts have long recognized the frailties of identification evidence given by independent, honest and well meaning eyewitnesses. This recognized frailty served to emphasize the essential need to cross-examine eyewitnesses. So many factors come into play with the human identification witness. As a minimum it must be determined whether the witness was physically in a position to see the accused and, if so, whether that witness had sound vision, good hearing, intelligence and the ability to communicate what was seen and heard. Did the witness have the ability to understand and recount what had been perceived? Did the witness have a sound memory? What was the effect of fear or excitement on the ability of the witness to perceive clearly and to later recount the events accurately? Did the witness have a bias or at least a biased perception of the event or the parties involved?