Where a plaintiff's credibility has been significantly damaged by demonstrated dishonesty in relation to quantum, a trial judge must carefully and comprehensively assess the effect of that dishonesty on the plaintiff's evidence as to liability, considering the totality of the deceptive conduct including its number, nature, purpose, magnitude and forums. A trial judge who accepts unchallenged expert evidence on some points (such as speed of impact) but rejects other conclusions flowing from the same analysis must adequately explain the basis for that selective acceptance. A finding that an accident occurred as alleged may be set aside as contrary to compelling inferences where the plaintiff's account is contradicted by accepted expert evidence and the plaintiff has demonstrated a willingness to lie when it is in his financial interests to do so.
The full text is available to signed-in members.