Link to older case law related to Spoliation

NEW Commonwealth Marketing Group Ltd. et al. v. The Manitoba Securities Commission et al., 2008 MBQB 319 (CanLII)

  • December 01, 2008

Date: 2008-12-01. Docket: CI 04-01-37149. Schulman J. | Link 
The Manitoba Securities Commission (MSC) conducted an undercover investigation and taped conversations with employees of Skyward Management Inc. (“Skyward”) without the knowledge of the employees. An employee of the MSC transcribed the recordings to a Word document. The MSC and Douglas Brown, general counsel to the MSC, subsequently published an investor alert warning the public about the risks of investing with the plaintiffs and Skyward. Plaintiffs sued the MSC and Brown for defamation and abuse of public authority. On the advice of an investigator with an RCMP background, Brown directed that the audiotape and transcript be destroyed. The destruction was disclosed in the defendants’ affidavit of documents. The MSC had another copy of the transcript printed, but the steps taken to create this new copy was not clear from the evidence. The court barred the defendants from making any use of the transcript during the discovery process. The issue of spoliation, the decision on whether to strike out the statement of defence, and the impact on the plaintiff’s ability for a fair trial should be left for the trial judge.

Brandon Heating & Plumbing (1972) Ltd. et al v Max Systems Inc., 2006 MBQB 90 (CanLII)

  • April 10, 2006

Date: 2006-04-10 Docket: CI 99.02.00265. Mykle J. |Link
"The plaintiff knew from the pleadings that the computer hardware and network operating system were relevant to this action. In fact, the plaintiff was specifically asked, and undertook, to preserve the hardware in the state that it was at the time of the discovery, for the purpose of inspection." (para 26)

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. v. Wenzel, 2006 ABQB 356 (CanLII)

  • May 12, 2006

Date: 2006-05-12 Docket: 0203 12910. S.J. Greckol J. | Link
A large corporate commercial and intellectual property suit. After a fine was imposed by the judge because answers to undertakings were not delivered to counsel for the Plaintiff, the Defendant appealed the fine.

Brown v. Wilkinson, 2012 BCSC 398

  • March 20, 2012

Date: 2012-03-20 | Link
Destruction of physical evidence despite receipt of a letter requesting its preservation results in order to produce adjuster's documents over which privilege is claimed.