Credibility and Reliability of Child Witnesses: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 14:27, 14 July 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2018. (Rev. # 95425)

< Evidence

General Principles

There is no fixed formula for dealing with child witnesses.^[1]

"Reasonable child" standard

The credibility of children is approached generally in the same way as adults. However, the standard of a "reasonable adult" may not be appropriate as a “reasonable child” may differ from that of an adult.^[2] "Flaws, such as contradictions, in the testimony of a child may not toll so heavily against credibility and reliability as equivalent flaws in the testimony of an adult."^[3] A child should not be held to the same "exacting standards" as an adult.^[4] The evidence of a child must be approached on a "common sense" basis, "taking into account the strengths and weaknesses which characterize the evidence."^[5]

Difference of Perception

Children "experience the world differently from adults", as such absence of details such as time and place are understandable and not necessarily fatal.^[6] Stereotypes of children should be avoided.^[7]

Same Standard of Scrutiny

Regardless, the standard of proof for the Crown is always the same and should be examined with the same level of scrutiny.^[8]

Applying a higher degree of scrutiny on defence witnesses than Crown witnesses is an error of law.^[9]

No Corroboration Needed

In certain cases, guilt can be found upon the testimony of a single child witness without corroboration.^[10]

Inconsistencies

Guilt may also be found despite the presence of inconsistencies on material issues, lack of recent complaint, motive to lie and concoct, passage of time, and recovered memory.^[11]

Passage of Time

The passage of a significant amount of time between the events and the laying of charges does not by itself warrant any caution.^[12]

Recollection by Child

It is recognized that a child "will have a better recollection of events shortly after they occurred" than weeks or months after.^[13]

Guidelines

Suggested guidelines include:^[14]

the credibility of child witnesses must be assessed carefully (in this context, “carefully” implies no bias either towards accepting or rejecting that evidence);
the standard to be applied in assessing the credibility of a child witness is not necessarily the same as that applied to a reasonable adult;
allowance must be made for the fact that young children may not be able to recount precise details and may not be able to communicate precisely the “when” and the “where” of an event, but their inability to do so should not lead to the conclusion that they have misperceived what has happened to them or who has done something to them;
there is no assumption or presumption at law that a child’s evidence is less reliable than an adult’s;
a common sense approach must be used in assessing the credibility of a child’s evidence, having regard to the age of the child, the child’s mental development and the child’s ability to communicate;
inconsistencies, particularly concerning peripheral matters such as time or place, should not have the same adverse effect on the credibility of a child as it might in the case of an adult, having regard to the age and mental development of the child and other relevant factors;
the burden of proof (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) remains unchanged when the Crown case is founded upon the evidence of a child or children. Specifically, the rules pertaining to credibility as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v D.W. do not change just because the Crown’s case is founded upon such evidence.

No Assumption of Unreliability

There can be no assumption that a witness is unreliable simply because of their age.^[15] However, where the age is particularly young, such as where a 6 year old is testifying to a time when he was under 2 years old, then special considerations should be made.^[16]

Child evidence that is graphic, clear, and unambiguous and is consistent with other witnesses are particularly compelling.^[17]

Stereotypes of Children

It is an error of law for judges to rely on stereotypes on how children are expected to react in the circumstances of sexual offences.^[18]

Methods Used When Interviewing Children

The conduct of a child interview may assist or detract from the reliability of the statement. Features assisting in reliability include:^[19]

use of a small private room with comfortable seating;
limited number of people in the room;
questioning that is polite, simple, friendly, and non-leading;
absence of any intimidating demeanour, voice or language.

↑ R v Marquard, 1993 CanLII 37 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 223, per McLachlin J
↑ R v GB, 1990 CanLII 114 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 30, per McLachlin J, at para 48
R v HC, 2009 ONCA 56 (CanLII), 241 CCC (3d) 45, per Watt JA, at para 42 ("Credibility requires a careful assessment, against a standard of proof that is common to young and old alike. But the standard of the “reasonable adult” is not necessarily apt for assessing the credibility of young children. Flaws, such as contradictions, in the testimony of a child may not toll so heavily against credibility and reliability as equivalent flaws in the testimony of an adult")
↑ HC, supra, at para 42
↑ GB, supra, at para 48
↑ R v RW, 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 122, per McLachlin J
↑ RW, ibid., at para 24
R v RRD, 2011 NLTD(G) 78(*no CanLII links)
R v BEM, 2010 BCCA 602 (CanLII), [2010] BCJ No 2787 (CA), per Bennett JA (3:0)
↑ RRD, supra
BEM, supra
↑ GB, supra, at para 48
RW, supra, at para 25 (the approach to child evidence does "not mean that the evidence of children should not be subject to the same standard of proof as the evidence of adult witnesses in criminal cases.")
Marquard, supra, at pp. 221-222
R v WS, 1994 CanLII 7208, 90 CCC (3d) 242, per Finlayson JA, at p. 251
R v PB, [2011] OJ No 423 (SCJ)(*no CanLII links)
R v TP, 2010 CanLII 79501 (NL PC), [2010] NJ No 414 (P.C.), per Brazil J
↑ R v Kiss, 2018 ONCA 184, at paras. 82(complete citation pending)
R v Howe (2005), 2005 CanLII 253 (ON CA), 192 C.C.C. (3d) 480 (Ont. C.A.), [2005] O.J. No. 39
R. v. Owen (2001), 2001 CanLII 3367 (ON CA), 150 O.A.C. 378 (C.A.), [2001] O.J. No. 4257
R. v. T.(T.), 2009 ONCA 613, at paras. 71-74
↑ R v Vetrovec, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 811, per Dickson J ("The common law, rejecting the 'numerical criterion' common to some legal systems, has traditionally held that the testimony of a single witness is a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction.")
↑ R v François, 1994 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 827, per McLachlin J
↑ R v Betker, 1997 CanLII 1902 (ON CA), 115 CCC (3d) 421, per Moldaver JA - adult testifying to abuse as child
↑ R v F(CC), 1997 CanLII 306 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 1183, per Cory J, at para 19 ("It is self‑evident to every observant parent and to all who have worked closely with young people that children, even more than adults, will have a better recollection of events shortly after they occurred than they will some weeks, months or years later.")
↑ R v AF, 2007 BCPC 345 (CanLII), per Skilnick J
↑ R v VK, 1991 CanLII 5761 (BC CA), 68 CCC (3d) 18, per Wood JA, at paras 18, 33
↑ R v CF, 1996 CanLII 623 (ON CA), 104 CCC (3d) 461, per Brooke JA, at para 18
Marquard
↑ R v Marleau, 2005 CanLII 8667 (ON CA), 197 OAC 29, per Lang JA
↑ R v ARD, 2017 ABCA 237 (CanLII), 353 CCC (3d) 1, per curiam (2:1)
↑ R v SS, 2022 ONCA 305 (CanLII), per MacPherson JA, at paras 86to 89 [in context of a Bradshaw application for a child's statement]

Recovered Memories

The accuracy of memories of children may be affected adversely by the use of therapy. Prudence must be taken in accepting recovered memories.^[1]

↑ PC v RC, 1994 CanLII 7501 (ON SC), 114 DLR (4th) 151, per Corbett J
R v ZEB, 2006 NSSC 36 (CanLII), per Gruchy J, at para 42
see also R v GDD, [1995] NSJ No 529(*no CanLII links)

[1] R v Marquard, 1993 CanLII 37 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 223, per McLachlin J

[2] R v GB, 1990 CanLII 114 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 30, per McLachlin J, at para 48
R v HC, 2009 ONCA 56 (CanLII), 241 CCC (3d) 45, per Watt JA, at para 42 ("Credibility requires a careful assessment, against a standard of proof that is common to young and old alike. But the standard of the “reasonable adult” is not necessarily apt for assessing the credibility of young children. Flaws, such as contradictions, in the testimony of a child may not toll so heavily against credibility and reliability as equivalent flaws in the testimony of an adult")

[3] HC, supra, at para 42

[4] GB, supra, at para 48

[5] R v RW, 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 122, per McLachlin J

[6] RW, ibid., at para 24
R v RRD, 2011 NLTD(G) 78(*no CanLII links)
R v BEM, 2010 BCCA 602 (CanLII), [2010] BCJ No 2787 (CA), per Bennett JA (3:0)

[7] RRD, supra
BEM, supra

[8] GB, supra, at para 48
RW, supra, at para 25 (the approach to child evidence does "not mean that the evidence of children should not be subject to the same standard of proof as the evidence of adult witnesses in criminal cases.")
Marquard, supra, at pp. 221-222
R v WS, 1994 CanLII 7208, 90 CCC (3d) 242, per Finlayson JA, at p. 251
R v PB, [2011] OJ No 423 (SCJ)(*no CanLII links)
R v TP, 2010 CanLII 79501 (NL PC), [2010] NJ No 414 (P.C.), per Brazil J

[9] R v Kiss, 2018 ONCA 184, at paras. 82(complete citation pending)
R v Howe (2005), 2005 CanLII 253 (ON CA), 192 C.C.C. (3d) 480 (Ont. C.A.), [2005] O.J. No. 39
R. v. Owen (2001), 2001 CanLII 3367 (ON CA), 150 O.A.C. 378 (C.A.), [2001] O.J. No. 4257
R. v. T.(T.), 2009 ONCA 613, at paras. 71-74

[10] R v Vetrovec, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 811, per Dickson J ("The common law, rejecting the 'numerical criterion' common to some legal systems, has traditionally held that the testimony of a single witness is a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction.")

[11] R v François, 1994 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 827, per McLachlin J

[12] R v Betker, 1997 CanLII 1902 (ON CA), 115 CCC (3d) 421, per Moldaver JA - adult testifying to abuse as child

[13] R v F(CC), 1997 CanLII 306 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 1183, per Cory J, at para 19 ("It is self‑evident to every observant parent and to all who have worked closely with young people that children, even more than adults, will have a better recollection of events shortly after they occurred than they will some weeks, months or years later.")

[14] R v AF, 2007 BCPC 345 (CanLII), per Skilnick J

[15] R v VK, 1991 CanLII 5761 (BC CA), 68 CCC (3d) 18, per Wood JA, at paras 18, 33

[16] R v CF, 1996 CanLII 623 (ON CA), 104 CCC (3d) 461, per Brooke JA, at para 18
Marquard

[17] R v Marleau, 2005 CanLII 8667 (ON CA), 197 OAC 29, per Lang JA

[18] R v ARD, 2017 ABCA 237 (CanLII), 353 CCC (3d) 1, per curiam (2:1)

[19] R v SS, 2022 ONCA 305 (CanLII), per MacPherson JA, at paras 86to 89 [in context of a Bradshaw application for a child's statement]

[20] PC v RC, 1994 CanLII 7501 (ON SC), 114 DLR (4th) 151, per Corbett J
R v ZEB, 2006 NSSC 36 (CanLII), per Gruchy J, at para 42
see also R v GDD, [1995] NSJ No 529(*no CanLII links)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+[[fr:Crédibilité_et_fiabilité_des_enfants_témoins]]
+{{Currency2|January|2018}}
 {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderWeighing}}
 {{HeaderEvidence}}
@@ Line 4: / Line 6: @@
 ==General Principles==
 There is no fixed formula for dealing with child witnesses.<ref>
-''R v Marquard'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frx2 1993 CanLII 37] (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 223{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}</ref>
+{{CanLIIRP|Marquard|1frx2|1993 CanLII 37 (SCC)|[1993] 4 SCR 223}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}</ref>
+; "Reasonable child" standard
 The credibility of children is approached generally in the same way as adults. However, the standard of a "reasonable adult" may not be appropriate as a “reasonable child” may differ from that of an adult.<ref>
-''R v GB'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsw6 1990 CanLII 114] (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 30{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}{{at|48}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|GB|1fsw6|1990 CanLII 114 (SCC)|[1990] 2 SCR 30}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}{{atL|1fsw6|48}}<br>
-''R v HC'', [http://canlii.ca/t/225zl 2009 ONCA 56] (CanLII), (2009), 241 CCC (3d) 45{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{at|42}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|HC|225zl|2009 ONCA 56 (CanLII)|241 CCC (3d) 45}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|225zl|42}} ("Credibility requires a careful assessment, against a standard of proof that is common to young and old alike. But the standard of the “reasonable adult” is not necessarily apt for assessing the credibility of young children. Flaws, such as contradictions, in the testimony of a child may not toll so heavily against credibility and reliability as equivalent flaws in the testimony of an adult")<br>
 </ref>
 "Flaws, such as contradictions, in the testimony of a child may not toll so heavily against credibility and reliability as equivalent flaws in the testimony of an adult."<ref>
-{{supra1|HC}}{{at|42}}</ref>
+{{supra1|HC}}{{atL|225zl|42}}</ref>
 A child should not be held to the same "exacting standards" as an adult.<ref>
-{{supra1|GB}}{{at|48}}<br>
+{{supra1|GB}}{{atL|1fsw6|48}}<br>
 </ref>
-The evidence of a child must be approached on a "common sense" basis, "taking into account the strengths and weaknesses which characterize the evidence". <ref>
+The evidence of a child must be approached on a "common sense" basis, "taking into account the strengths and weaknesses which characterize the evidence."<ref>
-''R v RW'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsbj 1992 CanLII 56] (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 122{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}
+{{CanLIIRP|RW|1fsbj|1992 CanLII 56 (SCC)|[1992] 2 SCR 122}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}
 </ref>
+; Difference of Perception
 Children "experience the world differently from adults", as such absence of details such as time and place are understandable and not necessarily fatal.<ref>
-{{ibid1|RW}}{{at|24}}<br>
+{{ibid1|RW}}{{atL|1fsbj|24}}<br>
-''R v RRD'', 2011 NLTD(G) 78{{NOCANLII}} <br>
+{{CanLIIR-N|RRD|, 2011 NLTD(G) 78}} <br>
-''R v BEM'', [2010] BCJ No. 2787 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fkdsv 2010 BCCA 602] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Bennett JA}} (3:0)</ref>Stereotypes of children should be avoided.<ref>
+{{CanLIIRP|BEM|fkdsv|2010 BCCA 602 (CanLII)|[2010] BCJ No 2787 (CA)}}{{perBCCA|Bennett JA}} (3:0)</ref>
+Stereotypes of children should be avoided.<ref>
 {{supra1|RRD}}<br>
-B.E.M.</ref>
+{{supra1|BEM}}</ref>
+; Same Standard of Scrutiny
 Regardless, the standard of proof for the Crown is always the same and should be examined with the same level of scrutiny.<ref>
-{{supra1|GB}}{{at|48}}<br>
+{{supra1|GB}}{{atL|1fsw6|48}}<br>
-{{supra1|RW}}{{at|25}} (the approach to child evidence does "not mean that the evidence of children should not be subject to the same standard of proof as the evidence of adult witnesses in criminal cases.")<br>
+{{supra1|RW}}{{atL|1fsbj|25}} (the approach to child evidence does "not mean that the evidence of children should not be subject to the same standard of proof as the evidence of adult witnesses in criminal cases.")<br>
 {{supra1|Marquard}}{{atps|221-222}}<br>
-''R v WS'' (1994), 90 CCC (3d) 242 (Ont. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1trwn 1994 CanLII 7208] (ON CA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}{{atp|251}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|WS|1trwn|1994 CanLII 7208|90 CCC (3d) 242}}{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}{{atp|251}}<br>
-''R v PB'', [2011] OJ No 423 (S.C.J.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
+{{CanLIIR-N|PB|, [2011] OJ No 423 (SCJ)}}<br>
-''R v TP'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2f82w 2010 CanLII 79501] (NL PC), [2010] N.J. No. 414 (P.C.){{perNLPC|Brazil J}}</ref>
+{{CanLIIRP|TP|2f82w|2010 CanLII 79501 (NL PC)|[2010] NJ No 414 (P.C.)}}{{perNLPC|Brazil J}}</ref>
-For details on the appropriate approach to assessing the evidence of children, see {{supra1|BG}} and {{supra1|RW}}
+Applying a higher degree of scrutiny on defence witnesses than Crown witnesses is an error of law.<ref>
+R v Kiss, 2018 ONCA 184, at paras. 82{{fix}}<br>
+R v Howe (2005), 2005 CanLII 253 (ON CA), 192 C.C.C. (3d) 480 (Ont. C.A.), [2005] O.J. No. 39<br>
+R. v. Owen (2001), 2001 CanLII 3367 (ON CA), 150 O.A.C. 378 (C.A.), [2001] O.J. No. 4257<br>
+R. v. T.(T.), 2009 ONCA 613, at paras. 71-74
+</ref>
+; No Corroboration Needed
 In certain cases, guilt can be found upon the testimony of a single child witness without corroboration.<ref>
-''R v Vetrovec'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpc2 1982 CanLII 20] (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 811{{perSCC|Dickson J}} ("The common law, rejecting the 'numerical criterion' common to some legal systems, has traditionally held that the testimony of a single witness is a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction.")</ref>
+{{CanLIIRP|Vetrovec|1lpc2|1982 CanLII 20 (SCC)|[1982] 1 SCR 811}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} ("The common law, rejecting the 'numerical criterion' common to some legal systems, has traditionally held that the testimony of a single witness is a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction.")</ref>
+; Inconsistencies
 Guilt may also be found despite the presence of inconsistencies on material issues, lack of recent complaint, motive to lie and concoct, passage of time, and recovered memory.<ref>
-''R v François'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frqm 1994 CanLII 52] (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 827{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}
+{{CanLIIRP|François|1frqm|1994 CanLII 52 (SCC)|[1994] 2 SCR 827}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}
 </ref>
+; Passage of Time
 The passage of a significant amount of time between the events and the laying of charges does not by itself warrant any caution.<ref>
-''R v Betker'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6h7s 1997 CanLII 1902] (ON CA){{perONCA|Moldaver JA}} - adult testifying to abuse as child
+{{CanLIIRP|Betker|6h7s|1997 CanLII 1902 (ON CA)|115 CCC (3d) 421}}{{perONCA|Moldaver JA}} - adult testifying to abuse as child
 </ref>
+; Recollection by Child
 It is recognized that a child "will have a better recollection of events shortly after they occurred" than weeks or months after.<ref>
-''R v F(CC)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqwc 1997 CanLII 306] (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 1183{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{at|19}} ("It is self‑evident to every observant parent and to all who have worked closely with young people that children, even more than adults, will have a better recollection of events shortly after they occurred than they will some weeks, months or years later.")
+{{CanLIIRP|F(CC)|1fqwc|1997 CanLII 306 (SCC)|[1997] 3 SCR 1183}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|1fqwc|19}} ("It is self‑evident to every observant parent and to all who have worked closely with young people that children, even more than adults, will have a better recollection of events shortly after they occurred than they will some weeks, months or years later.")
 </ref>
-The mere fact of a significant passage of time between the alleged offences and the laying of the charges does not, in itself, mandate such a caution.
+; Guidelines
 Suggested guidelines include:<ref>
-''R v AF'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1tsf2 2007 BCPC 345] (CanLII){{perBCPC|Skilnick J}}
+{{CanLIIRx|AF|1tsf2|2007 BCPC 345 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Skilnick J}}
 </ref>
 #the credibility of child witnesses must be assessed carefully (in this context, “carefully” implies no bias either towards accepting or rejecting that evidence);
@@ Line 64: / Line 78: @@
 #the burden of proof (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) remains unchanged when the Crown case is founded upon the evidence of a child or children.  Specifically, the rules pertaining to credibility as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v D.W. do not change just because the Crown’s case is founded upon such evidence.
+; No Assumption of Unreliability
 There can be no assumption that a witness is unreliable simply because of their age.<ref>
-''R v VK'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23278 1991 CanLII 5761] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Wood JA}}{{Ats|18, 33}}
+{{CanLIIRP|VK|23278|1991 CanLII 5761 (BC CA)|68 CCC (3d) 18}}{{perBCCA|Wood JA}}{{atsL|23278|18|}}, {{atsL-np|23278|33|}}
-</ref> However, where the age is particularly young, such as where a 6 year old is testifying to a time when he was under 2 years old, then special considerations should be made.<ref>
+</ref>
-''R v CF'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6j9d 1996 CanLII 623] (ON CA){{perONCA|Brooke JA}}{{at|18}}<br>
+However, where the age is particularly young, such as where a 6 year old is testifying to a time when he was under 2 years old, then special considerations should be made.<ref>
+{{CanLIIRP|CF|6j9d|1996 CanLII 623 (ON CA)|104 CCC (3d) 461}}{{perONCA|Brooke JA}}{{atL|6j9d|18}}<br>
 Marquard<br>
 </ref>
+Child evidence that is graphic, clear, and unambiguous and is consistent with other witnesses are particularly compelling.<ref>
+{{CanLIIRP|Marleau|1k1rk|2005 CanLII 8667 (ON CA)|197 OAC 29}}{{perONCA|Lang JA}}
+</ref>
+; Stereotypes of Children
+It is an error of law for judges to rely on stereotypes on how children are expected to react in the circumstances of sexual offences.<Ref>
+{{CanLIIRP|ARD|h4xms|2017 ABCA 237 (CanLII)|353 CCC (3d) 1}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1)
+</ref>
+; Methods Used When Interviewing Children
+The conduct of a child interview may assist or detract from the reliability of the statement. Features assisting in reliability include:<ref>
+{{CanLIIR|SS|jnrv3|2022 ONCA 305 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}{{AtsL|jnrv3|86|to 89}} [in context of a Bradshaw application for a child's statement]
+</ref>
+* use of a small private room with comfortable seating;
+* limited number of people in the room;
+* questioning that is polite, simple, friendly, and non-leading;
+* absence of any intimidating demeanour, voice or language.
 {{reflist|2}}
@@ Line 75: / Line 109: @@
 The accuracy of memories of children may be affected adversely by the use of therapy. Prudence must be taken in accepting recovered memories.<ref>
-''PC v RC'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wc2h 1994 CanLII 7501] (ON SC){{perONSC|Corbett J}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRPC|PC v RC|1wc2h|1994 CanLII 7501 (ON SC)|114 DLR (4th) 151}}{{perONSC|Corbett J}}<br>
-''R v ZEB'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22cc9 2006 NSSC 36] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Gruchy J}}{{at|42}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRx|ZEB|22cc9|2006 NSSC 36 (CanLII)}}{{perNSSC|Gruchy J}}{{atL|22cc9|42}}<br>
-see also ''R v GDD'', [1995] NSJ No 529{{NOCANLII}}
+see also {{CanLIIR-N|GDD|, [1995] NSJ No 529}}
 </ref>
 {{reflist|2}}