No Apparent Reason to Lie: What does that Prove Exactly?
The law maintains a distinction between 1. an absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate, and 2. an absence of a motive to fabricate. R. v. L. (L.) , 2009 ONCA 413, 244 C.C.C. (3d) 149, at para. 44. It does not logically follow that, because a witness has no apparent reason to lie (absence of evidence), the witness must be telling the truth: R. v. B. (R.W.) (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 1, at para. 28. The fact that a witness has no apparent motive to fabricate (absence of evidence) does not mean that the witness has no motive to fabricate. L. (L.) , at para. 44. Evidence of a good relationship between the witness and the accused In the context of a witness’ motive to fabricate, evidence of a good relationship between the witness and the prospective accused does no more than reinforce the absence of evidence of a proven motive, not prove the absence of motive. L. (L.) , at para. 45. As Justice Watt has noted: “The distinction between absence of ...