What is the standard of deference given to the trial judge in a sexual assault case?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from C.A.S. Toronto v L.G., 2015 ONSC 3706 (CanLII):
On matters of fact a high standard of deference must be given to the trial judge. Where a factual finding is grounded in an assessment of credibility, the trial judge is overwhelmingly advantaged. The weight to be assigned to various pieces of evidence is essentially the province of the trial judge. The trial judge is particularly advantaged as a result of having extensive exposure to the entire factual nexus of the case and familiarity with the often vast quantities of evidence, Housen v. Nikolaisen, supra, at paras. 24-25.
"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
What is the standard of conduct of a trial judge in a sexual assault case? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will a judge in a sexual assault case be found to have objected to the words of the Judge at the trial of the accused? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the current sentencing range for an assault where the accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of assault, assault and sexual assault? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a learned trial judge still have a reasonable doubt in a sexual assault case? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the trial judge assessed the credibility of the complainant in a sexual assault case? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will a trial judge consider corroborating evidence in a sexual assault case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the appropriate sentence for a conviction of sexual interference in a sexual assault case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for deference to a trial judge in a family law case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for obtaining medical records and sexual activity records in a sexual assault case? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there any case law or case law that supports the argument that a judge should consider some of the issues before the trial of the others? (Ontario, Canada)
