In what circumstances will a trial judge consider corroborating evidence in a sexual assault case?

In Khelawon, the court also held that a trial judge can consider all the circumstances, including the presence of corroborating or conflicting evidence. In this case, the trial judge was of the view that there was no corroborating evidence because there was nothing to confirm the complainant’s evidence on the sole fact put in issue by the appellant, which was that she had the complainant’s consent to take money out of the complainant’s savings account for her own use. In reaching that conclusion, the trial judge may have taken an overly cautious approach. In considering all the surrounding circumstances, a court need not be restricted to the kind of corroboration that characterized the accomplice rule before Vetrovec v. The Queen, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811.