Yes No Share to Facebook
Collusion in Testimony:
Reliability Concerns Regarding Truthfulness
Last Updated: July 01 2026
Question: Can a court treat two nearly identical witness affidavits or viva voce statements as unreliable, and what reliability factors are used to assess possible collusion or influence?
Answer: When you have two witnesses giving nearly identical accounts in an affidavit or viva voce testimony, Canadian courts may question reliability because the overlap could reflect coincidence, collusion, knowledge transfer from one statement to the other, or influence from a third party such as an interrogator; in R. v. U. (F.J.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764, the court explained that similarity of factual assertions can only be treated as strengthening reliability when alternative explanations (collusion, knowledge of contents, or third-party influence) are unlikely, and the similar assertions must be so striking that independent fabrication becomes highly unlikely, or the cumulative pattern of similarities becomes distinctive enough to reject coincidence as a likely cause. If you want help turning these reliability concerns into a practical, Ontario-focused litigation marketing and content plan, Marketing.Legal™ provides Digital Marketing for Lawyers, Paralegals, and More across Ontario, and you can contact (800) 551-5751 to discuss your needs and next steps.
Understanding the Testimony Collusion and Reliability Concerns Arising From Nearly Identical Witness Statements
When two or more people provide statements containing similar, meaning nearly identical, statements within an Affidavit or viva voce testimony, such raises the concern as to whether the statements are a genuine recollection of the facts or whether the statements are a concerted recital due to some form of influence, illicit or otherwise.
The Law
When two or more witnesses provide statements that are nearly identical, such raises concern for whether the statements are based on a factual recollection or whether the statements are provided in a colluded attempt to support and bolster the stories of each witness or whether the statements were influenced in another way. The case of R. v. U. (F.J.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764, reviewed these concerns whereas it was said:
40 ... When two statements contain similar assertions of fact, one of the following must be true:
1. The similarity is purely coincidental.
2. The similarity is the result of collusion between the two declarants, before one or both of their statements were made.
3. The second declarant knew of the contents of the first statement, and based his or her statement in whole or in part on this knowledge.
4. The similarity is due to the influence of third parties, such as an interrogator, who affected the contents of one or both of the statements.
5. The similarity occurred because the two declarants were both referring to an actual event -- that is, they were both telling the truth.
The first four explanations are, of course, equally consistent with the similar portions of the statement being true or false. It becomes possible to conclude that the similar portions of the statements are true only when it can be established that none of the first four alternatives are likely, and that the fifth option is thus the only likely explanation. Consequently, striking similarities between two statements will only enhance the likelihood that either of the statements is reliable when there is a basis for rejecting as unlikely all the alternative explanations.
41 In order to eliminate, or at least substantially reduce, the likelihood of a similarity between two statements arising through coincidence, the similar factual assertion must be so striking that it is highly unlikely two people would have independently fabricated it. If the similarities between two statements are not sufficiently striking, comparing them will not provide the circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness necessary to meet the threshold requirement of reliability since coincidence will not have been ruled out as an explanation. In some cases, the necessary degree of similarity will result from the unique nature of particular factual assertions in both statements. In other situations, while there may not be any points of similarity that are sufficiently striking to render coincidence unlikely when viewed standing alone, it may be that the cumulative combination of similar points renders the overall similarity between the two statements sufficiently distinctive to reject coincidence as a likely explanation.
As above, there are various concerns that arise when witnesses tender evidence statements that are eerily similar and give cause to the court to carefully review whether the reliability of the statements is strengthened or weakened by the multiplicity of witnesses providing statements that appear as too similar.
Conclusion
Witness statements that are identical or highly similar may be an indicator that the facts are accurate or may be an indicator that collusion or some other influence is involved. When witness statements are highly similar, the court will carefully review whether such is from innocent coincidence, accidental influence, or illicit collusion, and what effect should be given to the reliability of the statements.