Ontario civil | Evidence
ADMISSIBILITY
Statements to be redacted to conform with Apology Act, 2009
Plaintiff was guest of defendant homeowners. Resident was close to harbour entrance. Plaintiff allegedly was never at residence before and was not warned of possible hazards of swimming off homeowners’ dock. Plaintiff was swimming in proximity to harbour entrance. Plaintiff was injured when she was struck by motorboat. Plaintiff brought action in negligence. Plaintiff proposed to call witness who would say she was told by homeowners that they knew swimming at end of their dock was dangerous. Homeowners asserted evidence was coupled with apology and entire paragraph was inadmissible under provisions of Apology Act, 2009. Anticipated evidence contained separate sentences, with each sentence being separate thought. Second and fourth sentences of excerpt were to be redacted so as to conform with requirements of Act. Statements in question each conveyed separate and distinct thoughts or messages. There were statements of fact and statements of regret.
Cormack v. Chalmers (Sep. 8, 2015, Ont. S.C.J., Timothy Ray J., File No. CV-12-0240-00) 258 A.C.W.S. (3d) 88.
Statements to be redacted to conform with Apology Act, 2009
Plaintiff was guest of defendant homeowners. Resident was close to harbour entrance. Plaintiff allegedly was never at residence before and was not warned of possible hazards of swimming off homeowners’ dock. Plaintiff was swimming in proximity to harbour entrance. Plaintiff was injured when she was struck by motorboat. Plaintiff brought action in negligence. Plaintiff proposed to call witness who would say she was told by homeowners that they knew swimming at end of their dock was dangerous. Homeowners asserted evidence was coupled with apology and entire paragraph was inadmissible under provisions of Apology Act, 2009. Anticipated evidence contained separate sentences, with each sentence being separate thought. Second and fourth sentences of excerpt were to be redacted so as to conform with requirements of Act. Statements in question each conveyed separate and distinct thoughts or messages. There were statements of fact and statements of regret.
Cormack v. Chalmers (Sep. 8, 2015, Ont. S.C.J., Timothy Ray J., File No. CV-12-0240-00) 258 A.C.W.S. (3d) 88.
