Ontario Civil

Civil Procedure

Questionable evidence had any probative value

Plaintiff brought negligence action for motor vehicle collision. Jury verdict found defendants were not liable. Jury fixed damages. Plaintiff brought motion for mistrial because defendants failed to make disclosure of relevant documents. Motion was dismissed. Production of memo was collateral and privilege was maintained for it. There was no implied waiver of privilege of memo. Purchaser’s financial documents were not relevant at time they were received from purchaser. Counsel had reasonable factual basis for determination of relevancy. Evidence was weak and comparison could not be drawn out and it therefore was not relevant to plaintiff at time of discovery. There was no satisfactory evidence that evidence would have been presented. There was no evidence plaintiff searched out evidence and was denied it. It was not just to order new trial. It was questionable evidence had any probative value. There was no evidence counsel would use evidence.

Dali v. Panjalingham

(July 12, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., McLean J., File No. 07-CV-40166) 205 A.C.W.S. (3d) 94 (14 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A report is making waves because it reveals statistics about composition of juries in two Eastern Ontario regions, which lawyers say show how the system can be biased. Do you believe Ontario juries are representative of all the people who come before the court?