Adverse inference drawn that evidence intentionally destroyed to affect litigation

Federal court | Evidence

SPOLIATION

Adverse inference drawn that evidence intentionally destroyed to affect litigation

Plaintiff was vessel owner who left his fishing vessel with defendant for routine maintenance. Defendant lifted vessel out of water and purported to secure it in cradle. About two weeks later, vessel fell during high wind and suffered damage to fibreglass hull. Defendant disposed of cradle material before marine surveyor attended to inspect vessel about two days after incident. Plaintiff brought action against defendant for damages for negligence. Action allowed. Plaintiff was awarded total of $269,206.85 as claimed. Adverse inference was drawn that evidence was intentionally destroyed to affect litigation. Defendant ought to have known that litigation would be contemplated by plaintiff and that disposing of cradle material would affect any future claim made by plaintiff. It was not necessary for party to receive actual notice of litigation. Rebuttable presumption was raised that evidence was unfavourable to defendant. Defendant had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption.
Forsey v. Burin Peninsula Marine Service Centre (Oct. 20, 2014, F.C., E. Heneghan J., File No. T-298-12) 246 A.C.W.S. (3d) 699.

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Legal aid investments save governments money all over the world, Canadian researchers find

New real estate law podcast begins by tackling cannabis regulations

80% of legal employers prefer technical skills to personality

Torys’ Linda Plumpton named to American College of Trial Lawyers

Pressure mounts for immigration lawyers working with Latin American clients

$100K prize offered by Canadian legal tech start-up

Most Read Articles

OPP charges former tax lawyer with fraud and obstruction of justice

New facets of pure economic loss rule could have huge implications for businesses

Does solicitor-client privilege protect information shared with a legal app?

Court addresses the denial of dependent support for egregious conduct