What is the case law on false recollection and fabrication?

89. In addition to the improbability of the grievor’s story and the inconsistencies with conclusions drawn from the known facts, there are other reasons for discounting the grievor’s credibility. Union counsel pointed out that, in assessing the reliability of evidence, there is a distinction between false recollection and fabrication, a distinction which I accept. With most witnesses questions arise as to the reliability of at least some of their evidence, based on flaws in perception, memory or ability to recount their recollections. The human memory does not provide an accurate video-taping of events. This would account, for example, why the grievor initially reported that the access to her records was in November or December when it actually occurred in October. This case is unusual, however, in that the evidence establishes that, in addition to failures of memory, the grievor is capable of fabrication. She admittedly made up a version of events which she intentionally provided to her employer, not once but twice. The fabrications in which she engaged on February 1 and 7, 2019 were provided with details and diagrams. Unfortunately, this is one of the “comparatively infrequent cases in which a witness is caught in a clumsy lie” referred to in Faryna v. Chorny (supra). This puts the grievor's overall credibility in question.