Corroboration

R. v. Ahmadi, 2010 ONCA 639 presents an interesting example of corroboration in modern Canadian law. Historically for certain offences evidence corroborating the complaint was necessary. Such evidence had to tend to show an offence occurred and the accused was linked to the offence. Conviction was no available on the uncorroborated word of the complainant.

That situation is no long past and corroboration is only a "common sense" type requirement. The Court holds:

[6]               Second, the appellant contends that the trial judge erred with respect to corroborating or confirmatory evidence. The trial judge initially decided that the complainant's evidence could only be relied on where corroborated, given her level of intoxication. The appellant submits that he erred by relying on certain evidence as being confirmatory of the sexual assault.

[7]               We disagree. Some of the evidence criticized by the appellant in this submission was indeed directly corroborative of the sexual assault – for example, the injuries the complainant suffered after she left the Tim Horton's store with the appellant and his friend. The other evidence, although not directly corroborative of the sexual assault, was confirmatory of the complainant's account of the events generally, and was used as such by the trial judge.