The judge placed significant weight upon the fact the appellant was unable to provide an accurate account of the work he had done since his injury. That finding is not and cannot be challenged. There is no doubt that the quality of the appellant’s evidence was poor. He could not remember significant facts. He did not call witnesses he could have called to support his claim. He did not produce documentation that might have been produced. It was open to the trial judge to infer that such evidence, if produced, would be either contrary to the appellant’s case or else unsupportive of it: Lévesque v. Comeau, 1970 CanLII 4 (SCC), [1970] S.C.R. 1010 at 1012‑13.
"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.