The appellant relies on Paige v. R., 1948 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1948] S.C.R. 349, 6 C.R. 93, 92 C.C.C. 32 [Que.], but I think that decision not to be applicable. It dealt with a case in which the evidence of two witnesses required corroboration. Neither could provide the essential evidence to corroborate the other because the testimony of neither was evidence until it was corroborated. That is not this case. D.’s evidence does not require corroboration.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.