An appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's credibility-based findings of fact unless they are 'glaringly improbable' or 'contrary to compelling inferences'. Ambiguous documentary evidence (such as text messages) does not compel a different finding where the trial judge has made considered credibility assessments. A trial judge's observation that a potentially damaging admission was not put to a witness in cross-examination is a permissible factor in assessing credibility, not an impermissible imposition of an onus to cross-examine.
The full text is available to signed-in members.