How have the courts treated credibility and reliability in sentencing cases?

Finally, in her reasons for judgment, the trial judge referred to both credibility and reliability. Manifestly, her reasons concentrate on the issue of credibility (sincerity) because that is the way the case was presented and argued. In that regard, she considered all of the frailties in the evidence of the complainants and she gave cogent reasons for minimizing their significance. In the end, she felt that she could safely act on the evidence of the complainants. In doing so, although she did not specifically refer to Vetrovec v. The Queen, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811, she sought out and located various items of confirmatory evidence, some of which came directly from the appellant. Whether she was required to do so as a matter of law need not be decided. Her reasons show that she proceeded with care before acting on the evidence of the complainants to convict the appellant. The appellant’s submission to the contrary (outlined in his factum but not pressed in oral argument) is without foundation.