Sufficiency of reasons and credibility

The issue of credibility and sufficiency of reasons continues to pose challenges for the Court.  Today’s decision in R. v. H.A., 2009 ONCA 438 shows the problem.  An express reference to W(D) and why the evidence of one witness is more compelling than another is almost certainly prudent:

 

The trial judge was faced with starkly conflicting versions of what happened on that day from the appellant and his wife.  His reasons do not expressly indicate the basis upon which he resolved that conflict.  Nor do they permit us to infer how he did so.