Age and Ageism in the Assessment of Witnesses

As Canada’s population ages, an area of related concern is widespread and systemic discrimination against older adults known as ageism. Despite its importance, little is known about the ways age or ageism relate to judges’ credibility decisions in common law trials. This study empirically examines case law to see if there is a relationship between old age and judges’ credibility decisions for a sample of witnesses (N=898). T-tests and probit regressions showed a positive correlation between old age and judges’ assessments of general credibility, where witnesses aged over 60 were more likely to be positively assessed. At the same time, testimony from witnesses who were aged over 60 was also less likely to be positively assessed in terms of weight. The other evidence led by the party that called a witness was the strongest predictor of judges’ assessments. When the inquiry is shifted to the texts of individual cases, there are examples of judges holding stereotypical beliefs about older individuals who testify in their courtrooms. The final part of this dissertation moves beyond credibility decisions and considers the ways the rules of evidence and procedure could disproportionately exclude older adults from participating in trials. While the rules are capable of accommodating witnesses who experience limitations, a case law review finds that these provisions are rarely used for older adults. Through its detailed catalogue of judicial behaviours and analysis of rules and procedure, this study provides insights into the ways age and ageism could affect older witnesses, a conclusion with that has implications for research as well as for those who practice law.S.J.D