But in my view,
the judge reached no such conclusion.
Not exact matches
Another
such case was heard in Nova Scotia in 2014 (R. v. Race, 2014 NSSC 6 (CanLII)-RRB- and the trial
judge, Justice Kevin Coady, gave some insight into how a
judge reaches this
conclusion and his own sensitivity to the emotions and frustrations of the families involved.
In Wilson v Her Majesty's Advocate 2009 JC 336, which also concerned opinion evidence, the High Court of Justiciary, in an opinion delivered by Lord Wheatley, stated the test thus (at para 58): «[T] he subject - matter under discussion must be necessary for the proper resolution of the dispute, and be
such that a
judge or jury without instruction or advice in the particular area of knowledge or experience would be unable to
reach a sound
conclusion without the help of a witness who had
such specialised knowledge or experience.»
It is only if the trial
judge is unable to
reach a
conclusion about the transferor's actual intention at the time of the transfer that it may become necessary to apply
such presumption to possibly tip the scales in favour of the transferor of property or the donor of funds.
To achieve
such a benefit, it is essential for the
judges concerned to deliberate and discuss the case together; otherwise the
conclusions reached by these new, diverse, appointees could easily be relegated to a lone dissent or ignored by the other members of the panel.