At common law, a hostile witness is described as a witness who gives evidence that is contradictory to the person who calls him and by his manner he betrays a desire not to tell the truth: Boland v. Globe & Mail Ltd. at pp. 421-22: Prior to that enactment [s. 20 of the Ontario Evidence Act] a witness might be cross-examined by counsel for the party who called him if the trial Judge was of the opinion that the witness was hostile in the sense that he showed a mind hostile to the party calling him and by his manner of giving evidence betrayed a desire not to tell the truth, and he declared that in his opinion the witness was hostile. So far as the conduct or demeanour of the witness on the stand served to afford proof of such an animus, the common law required no statutory alteration to provide relief to a disappointed or discomfited litigant. Once the witness was ruled to be hostile, the party calling him could cross-examine him upon all relevant facts, including a statement made by him at some other time in consistent with the testimony then given by him.
"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.