Doctrine of Spoliation
Malka and Circle Inc. v. Vasilladis and Lugassy, 2011 ONSC 5884 (CanLII)[1]
[151] In advancing their case against the defendants, the plaintiffs place very heavy reliance upon the “doctrine of spoliation.” In Canada the rule, reflected in the latin phrase omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem (all things are presumed against the despoiler), is a rebuttable rule of evidence that suggests that, in appropriate circumstances, where a party destroys a document, the court may presume or infer that the document would have been detrimental to the party’s case. See: St. Louis v. The Queen (1896), 1896 CanLII 65 (SCC), 25 S.C.R. 649, at p. 652[2]; Lamb v. Kincaid, (1907), 1907 CanLII 38 (SCC), 38 S.C.R. 516, at pp. 540-541[3]; Spasic v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1998), 1998 CanLII 14716 (ON SC), 42 O.R. (3d) 391 (S.C.J.)[4] at para. 5, 28-29; Affirmed on this point: (2000), 2000 CanLII 17170 (ON CA), 49 O.R. (3d) 699 (C.A.)[5].
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Malka and Circle Inc. v. Vasilladis and Lugassy, 2011 ONSC 5884 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fnfc8>, retrieved on 2020-07-16
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 St. Louis v.The Queen, 1896 CanLII 65 (SCC), 25 SCR 649, <http://canlii.ca/t/ggx4p>, retrieved on 2020-07-16
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Lamb v. Kincaid, 1907 CanLII 38 (SCC), 38 SCR 516, <http://canlii.ca/t/22rxq>, retrieved on 2020-07-16
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Spasic v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., 1998 CanLII 14716 (ON SC), <http://canlii.ca/t/1vvl1>, retrieved on 2020-07-16
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Spasic Estate v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., 2000 CanLII 17170 (ON CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/1fb8s>, retrieved on 2020-07-16
