I read the majority reasons primarily as decrying the lack of evidence questioning the presumption that it is important to see a witnesses face. It was as if that block of the Court would have been comfortable siding with Abella J. if there were some expert evidence on the obvious truth that seeing a persons face does not help to tell if they are lying.

I think this is part of the modern trend in the SCC jurisprudence relying heavily on social science type evidence for policy driven decisions, which this case clearly is. I think the main lesson for lawyers here is that in Charter cases you should bring as much evidence as you can to support your position. The unfortunate consequence of this is the increased cost of Charter litigation, but I think that is where the law is at this time.