Date: 2008-02-13 Docket: S1 GS-18505. Kenneth R. MacDonald J. | Link
In a case involving loss of opportunity costs (among other claims), the plaintiff has sought disclosure of evidence of revenue by other contractors working for the defendant in the form of copies of waybills and associated invoices showing the weight and dimensions of the packages delivered.

Date: 2011-02-04 Docket: CA038081  Huddart, Low, Smith JJA. | Link
An appeal from a dismissal of an action in which the appellant (claimant) sought $6.5 million on a ticket issued in error. The plaintiff had also sought a remedy based on spoliation, since the defendant had destroyed the betting slips. Discussion of spoliation in the context of this claim starts at para 30.

Date: 2005-01-05 Docket: S/C/755/00. William T. Grant J. | Link
A nice discussion of the law starting at paragraph 17, in which the court says "The law concerning spoliation in Canada begins with the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in St. Louis v. R. (1895) S.C.R. 649 which stands for the proposition that where one party destroys evidence there is a rebuttable presumption that the evidence destroyed would have been adverse to that party's interest." In the following paragraphs there is a discussion of the case law in various jurisdictions, including the U.S. cases Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 2001 U.S.App. Div. LEXIS 24413 (4th Cir. 2001) and Northern Assurance Co. v. Ware, 145. FRD 281, 283 (D. Me. 1993).

Date: 2010-02-09 Docket: 07-CV-39896 Master MacLeod. | Link
Plaintiff moves to amend pleading to add spoliation, contending that destruction of the documents should attract either a negative evidentiary presumption or damages or both. The defendant challenges the increase in the prayer for relief if it is based on damages for spoliation because the plaintiff has not pleaded cause and effect or particularized the calculation of damages. The defendant will be entitled to know the calculation of damages prior to trial but there is no prejudice in simply raising the amount of the claim as proposed.

Date: 2006-08-18 Docket: S013226. N. Garson J. |Link
After the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, it applied for an order that the trial be reopened, based on an allegation that the defendant, ICBC, concealed and destroyed documents that were relevant to the plaintiff's case. The court concluded that the plaintiff has not proven there was a conspiracy or intentional wrong doing on the part of ICBC employees, inside counsel, or outside counsel, charged with managing and conducting the defence of this action, and that none of these documents either individually or when considered collectively would probably affect the conclusions. (para 99 - 103)

Date:2007-07-03 Docket: 03-CV-245266CM2 Moore J. |>Link
Case involving missing hospital records in the case of a child who subsequently became very ill and disabled.

Date: 2006-09-14 Scurfield J. | Link
Evidence that the defendants attempted to destroy evidence of their pre-resignation activities by erasing information from their computers attracted an adverse inference that they were probably involved in the direct solicitation of the plaintiff's customers before leaving the employment of the plaintiff. The court also took the spoliation into account to impose more rigorous injunction prohibitions than it would have normally. (paras 20-23)

Date: 2009-11-09 Docket: 2007-1665(GST)G ; 2007-1561(IT)G B. Paris J. | Link
The Appellant seeks an order allowing his appeal based on grounds that the respondent has not disclosed all relevant documents and has destroyed relevant information.

| Link
In this personal injury case, the defendants sought to compel the plaintiff to produce her computer. Plaintiff's counsel advised the solicitor for the defendants that "the plaintiff's computer became corrupted and the information was not retrievable after a professional attempted to save her data.

| Link
"Appeal from decision of motions judge striking out the statement of defence for failure to produce documents - Appeal allowed, and relief granted to the appellant under Rule 30.08 by making such other order as is just." Dan Michaluk's summary is here.