Litigation Preservation

NEW - R. v. Cheung, 2000 ABPC 86 (CanLII).

  • June 09, 2000

Date: 2000-06-09. Maher, J. | Link
The issue is whether the three accused are entitled to paper and tape recordings, in addition to the electronic disclosure that was already produced. The applicants are three of the 34 accused jointly charged with a variety of offences, including conspiracy with all the other accused, and participating in a criminal organization.

NEW - R. v. Foster and Walton-Ball, 1982 CanLII 2522 (SK CA).

  • June 18, 1982

Date: 1982-06-18. Woods, Hall and Tallis, JJ.A. | Link
Foster and Walton-Ball were each convicted of perjury for evidence given by them in examinations for discovery from their wrongful termination lawsuits. They were each sentenced to imprisonment for one day and ordered to pay a $2,500 fine. After defaulting on the payment, they were sentenced to a further 90 days. The Crown has appealed the sentences. The appellate court found that “the sentences imposed do not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime of perjury. The appellants are articulate and sophisticated business people who no doubt enjoyed a good reputation in the business community. Their motives in this case are obvious. In their respective civil actions they were represented by able and respected counsel. I have no doubt that the sanctity of the oath on an examination for discovery was fully explained to each of them. Accordingly the sentence imposed in such cases must reflect the gravity of the offence committed and the necessary general and specific deterrence that must flow from sentences imposed for such offences. The integrity of the administration of justice in both civil and criminal matters depends in a large part on the honesty of parties and witnesses who testify and this fact must be considered. In the case of perjury prosecutions, the Criminal Code makes no distinction between perjury committed in civil or criminal proceedings. Our system of discovery and production of documents in civil actions contemplates the production of authentic rather than fabricated or falsified documents“. The court imposed a new sentence of eight months imprisonment on both Foster and Walton-Ball.

NEW - Rozen v. Rozen, 2002 BCCA 537 (CanLII)

  • September 27, 2002

Date: 2002-09-27. Docket: CA028912. | Link
Appeal from a child support order. Ms. Rozen seeks to admit fresh evidence of the Mr. Rozen’s 2000 income tax return, which she obtained by court order. The appellate court found that “[t]he failure to make full disclosure of his 2000 income is an egregious mistake in judgment on the father's part. […]More importantly, it is clear Mr. Rozen knew his partnership income for 2000 when his counsel appeared before Oppal J. […] I cannot resist the conclusion Mr. Rozen deliberately withheld his 2000 income tax return from Oppal J. with a view to minimizing the payment of child support and thwarting the purpose of the [Child Support] Guidelines.” The court ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2000 and ordered Mr. Rozen to pay special costs.

NEW - Spasic Estate v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., 2000 CanLII 17170 (ON CA).

  • July 21, 2000

Date: 2000-07-21. Docket: C31079. Borins, MacPherson and Sharpe JJ.A. | Link
Tobacco liability case continued by the estate of a woman who died of lung cancer. Appeal from a motion judge’s decision to strike out paras. 8 to 15 of the statement of claim which allege the defendants intentionally destroyed evidence relating to the dangers of cigarettes. The motions judge found that spoliation is not a reasonable cause of action; it is not an independent tort. The appellate court found that paras. 8 to 15 should not have ben struck out and that the claim should proceed to trial. “[T]here is no need to embark on a detailed consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the law, including the Canadian law, on the tort of spoliation. If it is established that the conduct of the respondents resulted in harm to the plaintiff by making it impossible for her to prove her claim, then it will be for the trial judge, in the context of a complete record, to determine whether the plaintiff should have a remedy. This is how the progress of the common law is marked in cases of first impression, where the court has created a new cause of action where none had been recognized before.”

NEW- Gould Estate v. Edmonds Landscape & Construction Services Ltd, 1998 CanLII 5136 (NS SC).

  • January 05, 1998

Date: 1998-01-05. Docket: S. H. No. 93-1729. J Macdonald, J. | Link
Ferna Gould paid the defendants for construction, landscaping and personal care. Her executor, the plaintiff in this action, alleges the defendants took advantage of Mrs. Gould and seeks to have the estate indemnified. The defendants argue that Mrs. Gould received advice from her accountant, stockbroker and lawyer and seek production of documents relating to this advice.

NEW- R. v. Sharma, 2014 ABPC 131 (CanLII)

  • June 18, 2014

Date: 2014-06-18. Docket: 130113343P1. A.A. Fradsham, J. | Link
This was a voir dire ruling on the allegation that the police intentionally destroyed evidence pertaining to Mr. Sharma’s impaired driving charge.

Petrasovic v. 1496348 Ontario Limited, 2012 ONSC 4897 (CanLII).

  • September 07, 2012

Date: 2012-09-07. Docket: CV-10-15000. Leach, J. | Link
This decision relates to three motions, one of which involves an order compelling the defendants to produce a further and better affidavit of documents and to permit inspection of certain documents prior to oral examinations.