R v. Truong, 2012 ONCA 91 (per Curiam):

[4] In this case, the trial judge rejected the appellant’s testimony on several bases. Chief among these was the fact that the appellant’s version of events as recounted in his trial testimony stood in stark contrast to that of the senior police officer at the scene in several critical respects. In this context, it was open to the trial judge to take account of the fact that the version of events suggested by defence counsel in cross-examining the police officers was materially different than the appellant’s account and to conclude that the appellant “was making much of his evidence up as he went along”. The trial judge expressly confirmed in his reasons that this was the telling feature of the appellant’s testimony that weighed “in very large measure” against the appellant’s credibility. This was an entirely permissible approach to the assessment of the appellant’s credibility. To the extent, therefore, that the trial judge relied on the rule in Browne v. Dunn in his consideration of the appellant’s credibility, this reliance was of little, if any, moment.