Decision-makers are frequently tasked with assessing witness testimony and making findings on the reliability and credibility of the witnesses before them. But is it in an error of law when a decision-maker makes findings based on their own assumptions about human behaviour and not strictly on the evidence before them?
This issue was before the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 [Kruk], wherein the Court declined to recognize the proposed "rule against ungrounded common sense assumptions". At issue were the findings of the Trial Judge in two separate decisions that were purportedly injected with the respective decision-maker's common sense assumptions about human behaviour within the context of sexual assault convictions. For example, one such...
