Does the complainant have to be considered a young person when it comes to her credibility?

Although the complainant had just turned seventeen at the time of the trial, she must still be regarded as a young person and not held to the exacting standards of credibility expected of an adult. Moreover, the complainant testified about events that occurred when she was twelve and fourteen years old. As McLachlin J. (as she then was) says in Regina v. W. (R.) (1992) 1992 CanLII 56 (SCC), 13 C.R. (4th) 257, evidence pertaining to events that occurred in childhood is not to be assessed entirely according to the criteria applicable to an adult witness: In general, where an adult is testifying as to events which occurred when she was a child, her credibility should be assessed according to criteria applicable to her as an adult witness. Yet with regard to her evidence pertaining to events which occurred in childhood, the presence of inconsistencies, particularly as to peripheral matters such as time and location, should be considered in the context of the age of the witness at the time of the events to which she is testifying. (at p. 268)