Source: https://www.fernandeshearn.com/newsletter-2015-october-fernandes-hearn-toronto-law-firm/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:02:32+00:00

Document:
Fernandes Hearn LLP is pleased to announce its inclusion in the Chambers Canada 2016 Guide of Canada’s Leading Lawyers for Business in “Shipping” and “Rail & Road”, with Rui Fernandes and Gordon Hearn being listed as “Leading Individuals” in those areas.
Gordon Hearn will be representing the firm at the Transportation Law Institute being held in Columbus, Ohio on October 30, 2015.
The Canadian Passenger Vessel Association Annual Conference will be taking place in Halifax November 18-20. Rui Fernandes will be speaking at the conference. Tara Cassidy will also be attending.
In the recent decision of A.G. Ontario v. Kittiwake Sailboat, 2015 ONSC 6106 Justice Corbett of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario disallowed a proposed seizure of a sailboat by the Attorney General of Ontario (“AG Ontario”) under the Civil Remedies Act (“CRA”).
The facts of this case are simple. On August 4, 2013, Valentin Chygyrynskyy was seen operating his sailboat in Toronto harbour. The sailboat struck a moored powerboat. Then Mr. Chygyrynskyy was observed falling out of his boat into the water. Mr. Chygrynskyy swam to shore with the aid of a flotation device thrown to him by his passenger. The police Marine Unit was dispatched and helped Mr. Chygyrynskyy from the water. Mr. Chygyrynskyy provided two breath samples. His readings were 158 mgs and 147 mgs of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. Mr. Chygyrynskyy was charged with offences related to impaired operation of a boat. Following these events, the AG Ontario obtained a preservation order and applied for forfeiture of Mr. Chygyrynskyy’s sailboat under the CRA.
The CRA is a “Robin Hood” law conceived as a way to take property from criminals and give the proceeds from its sale to victims. It is a procedure in a civil court and not criminal court. It doesn’t require a charge and conviction in a criminal proceeding. An application can simply be made to a judge in a civil proceeding where the onus of proof is on a balance of probabilities as opposed to the more rigorous standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
… an Oshawa couple had a portion of the value of their house seized even though drug possession charges against them were dropped. In Orillia, a landlord who rented rooms to homeless people could lose his property because the province contends that tenants paid rent with money made selling drugs.
Critics point out that because it’s easier to prove a case in civil court than in criminal court, the forfeiture process has become a parallel justice system for weak cases.
In a proceeding commenced by the Attorney General, the Superior Court of Justice shall, subject to subsection (3) and except where it would clearly not be in the interests of justice, make an order forfeiting property that is in Ontario to the Crown in right of Ontario if the court finds that the property is an instrument of unlawful activity.
… property that is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity that, in turn, would be likely to or is intended to result in the acquisition of other property or in serious bodily harm to any person, and includes any property that is realized from the sale or disposition of such property….
an act or omission that… (a) is an offence under an Act of Canada, Ontario or another province or territory of Canada….
For the purpose of the definition of “instrument of unlawful activity” in subsection (1), proof that property was used to engage in unlawful activity that, in turn, resulted in the acquisition of other property or in serious bodily harm to any person is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the property is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity that, in turn, would be likely to result in the acquisition of other property or in serious bodily harm to any person.
Justice Corbett pointed out that forfeiture is mandatory if the conditions of s. 7(1) are met, unless such an order “would clearly not be in the interests of justice.” Thus forfeiture will be automatic in all but exceptional cases.
The judge found that the condition in s. 7(1) was met since impaired operation of a sailboat is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada and therefore is an “unlawful activity” within the meaning of the CRA.
In this proceeding, the onus was on the AG Ontario to show that it was “likely” that the boat would be used for unlawful activity in the future. The court noted that Mr. Chygrynskyy has operated his boat once while impaired. There was no evidence that he had done so before. The owner also testified that he intended to sell the sailboat since he had health problems. The judge accepted this evidence as credible. The judge found that the AG Ontario had not met its onus to show that it was “likely” that the sailboat would be used in unlawful activity in the future.
The judge also found that the events that gave rise to the court application by the AG Ontario did not cause serious bodily harm to any person. Thus the AG Ontario did not have the benefit of the presumption in s. 7(2) of the CRA.
There is some risk that it may. But that is not the test. The test is “likely”. The Crown has not come close to establishing this proposition, which strikes me as rather remote. The Crown has not come close to establishing this proposition, which strikes me as rather remote. Certainly there is no evidence before me that it is more likely than not that an impaired boater will cause serious bodily injury to a person. The statistics indicate that the risk for motorists is much smaller than 50%, and as a matter of common sense I would suggest that the risks for persons on a leisure sailboat would be much lower still. The applicant has adduced evidence that forty per cent of fatal boating accidents involve drugs or alcohol. With respect, that evidence is beside the point. It may establish that there is elevated risk associated with impaired operation of a boat. It does not establish that this risk is above 50%, the level required to make serious bodily harm a “likely” consequence.
…I appreciate that this mathematical analysis could be seen to trivialize the risks associated with impaired operation of cars and boats. That is not the point here. The probability of serious bodily harm is less than “likely”, but the consequences of that risk being realized are unacceptable. Impaired driving, whether of cars or boats, is a serious social harm – it creates no benefit to anyone, and may cause disastrous loss to some. But the seriousness of the consequences does not make those consequences more likely.
Forfeiture under the CRA is a confiscation of private property by the state, without compensation. Where proceeds of crime are confiscated, there is no countervailing interest to balance: criminals can rightly be deprived of the fruits of their criminal activity. Where property is used for the purpose of committing criminal acts, there may be conflicting values at play. Where the property is not owned lawfully in the first place, there is a strong argument for confiscation without compensation. Where the property is owned and used legitimately by its owner, but also happens to be used in connection with a crime, the case for confiscation without compensation becomes more problematic. The Legislature recognized these issues when it used the strong language it did to define “instruments of unlawful activity” as it did: the strict interpretation of this provision is consistent with the Legislature’s goals to make this powerful remedy available to fight organized crime, drug crimes, and other similar activities.
The owner of the sailboat had been unrepresented. The court had, however, appointed a lawyer to assist the owner and the court with some of the issues, an amicus curiae. The amicus curiae had raised an interesting issue as to whether the application of the CRA to a sailboat was constitutional, given the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over navigation and shipping. The judge noted that it was not necessary for him to decide this constitutional issue to dispose of this case, and declined to do so. This issue was left to be decided in a future case.
The application by the AG Ontario to seize the vessel was dismissed. The sailboat was ordered to be returned to its owner.
While negotiating the terms of an international or “cross-border” agreement the parties will of course address the detail of the goods of services being provided, the pricing, delivery obligations and other related items. Often the parties will fail to turn their minds to an important legal consideration: in the event of a dispute arising from the contract, what law will apply? By not addressing this topic, or, as is often the case, one or both parties simply by default agreeing to adopt a “choice of law” clause that exists in a “boilerplate” wording, a party may face unintended adverse consequences in the event of a dispute.
That the “choice of law” is an important consideration in an international or “cross-border” agreement is nicely illustrated by the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Lilydale Cooperative Limited v. Meyn Canada Inc. (*1).
Meyn Canada Inc. (“Meyn”) is a multi-national enterprise, incorporated federally in Canada and operating only in the province of Ontario. Lilydale Cooperative Limited (“Lilydale”) is an Alberta operation, which operates a poultry processing plant in Edmonton. In 1993, Lilydale purchased from Meyn a “fryer and oven system” for its Edmonton plant. Lilydale used the fryer and oven system for 10 years until January 2004 when a fire occurred in its plant. In January 2006, (13 years after the purchase) Lilydale sued Meyn in Ontario for negligence and breach of contract, alleging that the fryer and oven system was defective and had caused the fire.
An issue arose as to whether Alberta or Ontario law applied to the negligence and breach of contract claim. This issue was more than one of passing interest or a legal technicality: Alberta and Ontario have different “ultimate limitation periods” for actions based on negligence or breach of contract. (*2) Alberta’s ultimate limitation period is 10 years. Ontario’s ultimate limitation period is 15 years. The parties agreed, as a matter of fact, that the purchase of the system by Lilydale was consummated in or about August 31, 1994, being the effective date on which Lilydale’s “cause of action” or legal basis to sue arose. Accordingly, as Lilydale did not commence a lawsuit until January 2006, if Alberta law applied, its action was statute barred. However on the other hand, if Ontario law applied, Lilydale’s action was not statute barred.
The purchase agreement did not have a “choice of law” clause as between Alberta or Ontario, or for that matter any other body of law.
The residence and domicile of the parties.
Meyn appealed this result. Noting that while the judge in first instance stated the correct test to determine applicable law, Meyn asserted that the judge misapplied the same to the facts of the case. Meyn took it’s appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, for a ruling that the contract claim was in fact time-barred.
– Did she similarly err in holding that the place of performance of the contract favoured Ontario?
It now appears to have been accepted by the highest Courts in England that the problem of determining the proper law of the contract is to be solved by considering the contract as a whole in light of all the circumstances which surround it and applying the law with which it appears to have the closest and most substantial connection.
Meyn characterized the contract as simply being for the sale and installation of a piece of equipment. This was completed in the delivery to, and installation in the province of Alberta, so Alberta law should govern. The Court of Appeal disagreed, noting that the contract was not simply for the sale of an item, but was rather a contract for the design and sale of the fire and oven system. In this regard the Court noted that the system consisted of a number of different components that Meyn had to order from various third party suppliers to be shipped to Lilydale. Meyn also had to design the system. The Court of Appeal noted that the steps involved in terms of the ordering of components and in the design of the system were all done in Ontario and that accordingly, the first instance judge’s finding that the nature and subject matter of the contract was more connected to Ontario was a reasonable finding and should “stand”.
The first instance judge concluded that most of the contract was performed in Ontario and that there was virtually no work done in Alberta. Noting that the contract called for Meyn’s design of the system, which was done in the province of Ontario, the Court of Appeal in similar fashion sided with the judge that it was with reasonable for her to have found that most of the contract had been performed by Meyn in Ontario.
Meyn, a multi-national enterprise, could have inserted a choice of law clause in its contract with Lilydale. Had Meyn done so, it would have undoubtedly chosen Ontario, the only province in Canada where it operates. It seems to me more than a little ironic that despite its own connections with Ontario, Meyn would seek to take advantage of Alberta law.
In the result, the Court of Appeal confirmed that Lilydale’s breach of contract claim against Meyn could still proceed under Ontario law. The action would live to see another day – perhaps even a trial.
The facts of this case are perhaps an extreme example of what happens when, in the absence of a “choice of law” clause, the parties remain, for better or worse, subject to the views of a court as to what law should govern. The concept of the “ultimate limitation period”, and how it might vary between legal jurisdictions is, admittedly, likely a remote consideration even if contracting parties turn their minds to the choice of law issue. No doubt there are more pressing short-term comparisons to be made as to how one jurisdiction’s laws are more beneficial than another. The ‘take away’ here is that a careful study and analysis should be undertaken as much as possible in the completion of an international or a cross-border contract as to what law will govern the contract. The failure to do so could result with unintended consequences.
(*2) Each province has legislation pertaining to how long a party can wait to commence a court action. Ontario and Alberta are no exception, having enacted two conceptually different “time bars” or periods for suit to be taken. One relates to a certain number of years (i.e. for these provinces, two years) for suit to be taken after a plaintiff develops an awareness (or, with the exercise of due diligence, could have become so aware) of the facts giving rise to its ability to claim damages from the other party. This is known as the “discoverability” principle, and is meant to be fluid and fact specific as to when such two year time clock starts “ticking”. Both provinces however have an interest in an ultimate “shelf life”, or end date – discoverability considerations aside – for a plaintiff to commence an action. This is what is referred to as the “ultimate limitation period”.
(*3) The ruling that the ”negligence“ claim in tort was subject to Alberta law went uncontested on the appeal hearing being the subject of this article. This was in keeping with the well established rule that the relevant law in a negligence case is the legal system governing the place where the “wrong” took place. The question of what law governed the contract remained “up in air”.
(*4) In Canadian law, the time bar period, or “statutes of limitation” are considered to be “substantive” law, meaning that the time bar provisions in the law governing the contract in question applies.
(*5) Imperial Life Assurance Co. of Canada v Segundo Casteleiro Y Colmenares  S.CR. 443. While perhaps an implied notion with the discussion thus far, the reader should note that as a general rule the courts do, in effect, apply the law prescribed in a “choice of law” clause agreed to by the parties. Granted, there may be expense and significant logistics involved in proving what that law actually is in the foreign “chosen country for application in a Canadian based dispute. Typically this involves calling a lawyer from the “chosen” jurisdiction as an expert witness to give evidence before the Canadian judge hearing the matter as to what the foreign law is as a matter of fact.
The Trucking Food Safety Program (“TFSP”) may soon become the new standard for transporting food products. Carriers may want to consider following this voluntary program or implementing their own HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Controls Points) plan to increase their competitive advantage and facilitate their compliance with any future legislation adopting similar principles.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (“US Act”) became law in the United States in 2011. In September 2015, the first two major Rules under the US Act have been finalized and will become effective November 16, 2015 (Rules on Preventative Controls in Human and Animal Food). There are also proposed Rules regarding Accreditation of Third Party Auditors, Amendments to Registration of Food Facilities, Standards regarding Produce, Food Supplier Verification Programs for Importers, and the Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food.
The proposed rule on Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans (“Verification Rule”) aims to require importers to perform certain activities to help ensure that the food they bring into the US is produced in a manner consistent with US standards. (*11) Under the Verification Rule, when there is reason to believe that a hazard will cause serious injuries or death, a clear, rigorous verification standard is required in the form of annual on-site auditing of the supplier. Otherwise, importers will have the flexibility to determine the appropriate verification measure based on food and supplier risks.
Implementing the practices proposed under the US Act will facilitate carriers’ compliance with US law and provide a competitive advantage where US shippers require HACCP certified carriers under their Preventative Controls Rule plan. The Sanitary Transportation rule will be mandatory for shippers, carriers and receivers who transport food to and in the United States with some exceptions, such as food that is transshipped through the US to another country.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (“CFIA”) has indicated that they are working closely with the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) “toward achieving food safety system recognition between Canada and the US. (*12) As noted in the September 2015 Fernandes Hearn LLP Newsletter, the Safe Food for Canadians Act (“Canadian Act”), which is not yet in force, aims to better protect Canadians from risks relating to food safety by implementing stronger food safety rules, more effective inspection methods, and increased penalties for contraventions of the Canadian Act. As with the Verification Rule under the US Act, the Canadian Act requires importers to be licensed and is meant to hold them accountable for the safety of the foods that they are bringing into Canada. In addition, the regulations under the Canadian Act intend to prescribe elements required for a food safety control plan, similar to HACCP.
Currently, establishments that process, inspect, package, freeze and store meat products, among other activities, must develop, implement and maintain HACCP plans and other control programs as set out in the Food Safety Enhancement Program Manual. (*13) Similarly, establishments that process, store or export fish are required to maintain an HACCP plan. (*14) While HACCP plans are not mandatory in federally registered dairy, processed product, egg, honey, maple and hatchery establishment, the CFIA strongly recommends that these establishments adopt HACCP, which suggests that regulations implementing hazard control plans may become law in the future (*15) Carriers who comply with HACCP will be more appealing to these customers by giving customers the piece of mind that the transportation of their product will comply with their HACCP plan.
Carriers should consider implementing a HACCP plan of their own or participating in the TFSP to increase their competitive advantage and facilitate compliance with future legislation that may make HACCP mandatory for the transportation industry or the industries of their customers.
In City of Toronto v. Uber Canada Inc., et al., 2015 ONSC 3572 (hereinafter referred to as “City v. Uber”), the City of Toronto (“the City”) brought an application seeking, amongst other things, a declaration that the respondents, Uber Canada Inc, Uber B.V., and Rasier Operations B.V. (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “Uber”) were operating a taxicab brokerage and limousine service company contrary to section c. 545 the City of Toronto Municipal Code (the “Code”). The City sought an injunction restraining Uber from, amongst other things, operating a taxicab brokerage and limousine service company in Toronto without a valid license.
The Court held in this decision that the City failed to demonstrate a breach of the Code by the Uber.
1. Is Uber captured by the construction/definition of “Taxicab” and “Limousine” in Article 1 of c. 545 of the Code?
Issue 2 – Does Uber operate a “Limousine Service Company” as defined by the Code?
(*1.) City of Toronto v. Uber Canada Inc., et al., 2015 ONSC 3572 at para 3 and 4.
(*2.) Ibid at para 4.
(*3.) Ibid at para 26.
(*4.) Ibid at para 12.
(*5.) Ibid at para 49.
(*6.) Ibid at para 52.
(*7.) Ibid at para 52.
(*8.) Ibid at para 60.
(*9.) Ibid at paras 60 and 61.
(*10.) Ibid at para 62.
(*11.) Ibid at paras 65 and 77.
(*12.) Ibid at para 79.
(*13.) Ibid at para 103.
(*14.) Ibid at para 104.
(*15.) Ibid at paras 13 and 69.
(*16.) Ibid at para 9.
In Ontario, if there is a reasonable inference via the evidence presented that a party to an action has intentionally destroyed relevant evidence to affect the outcome of the litigation, a presumption arises against that party that the evidence was unfavourable to it. However, such an presumption is “rebuttable” meaning that the offending party or “spoliator” may counter the presumption by presenting evidence proving, that even though the evidence was intentionally destroyed, his or her actions or events that resulted in the destruction of evidence were not aimed at affecting the outcome of the litigation or impacting the way that the spoliator proves or disproves his or her case.
On October 9, 2015, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Burin Peninsula Marine Services Centre (“Burin”) from a judgment rendered by Madam Justice Heneghan of the trial court in favour of the plaintiff, Maxwell Forsey (“Forsey”).
The case involved Forsey’s fishing vessel, “Eastern Gambler” (the “Vessel”). The Vessel’s hull was to be serviced by Burin at the Burin premises, a facility used for storage and servicing of vessels. Burin agreed to remove the Vessel from the water and to place it on dry land prior to effecting repairs. The Vessel was then supported on land by a cradle consisting of keel blocks (large rectangular pieces of wood) that were placed at perpendicular angles to the keep and two pieces of “cribbing” or “supports” on each side. These support were adjusted against the hull by “wedges” inserted between the support and hull.
The Vessel remained stored at Burin during which time Burin’s employees performed general maintenance and repairs. About a month after the Vessel’s arrival, heavy winds swept through the Burin Peninsula and the Vessel was then found lying on the ground on its starboard side having suffered serious structural damage.
Forsey brought an action in Federal Court for damages of approximately $270,000.00 claiming that the relationship with Burin was one of bailment for reward and that Burin was responsible for the safekeeping of the Vessel while in Burin’s care, custody and control. Further it was alleged that Burin had failed to supply adequate and proper cradling materials and failed to install additional cradle supports in respect of the storm when Burin knew or ought to have known that such adverse weather conditions were imminent so as to ensure the safety of the Vessel.
Burin in response argued that it was Forsey’s responsibility for building the cradle to secure the Vessel in that Forsey had chosen to use materials stored at the Burin premises and that Forsey was responsible for ensuring that such materials were sound and appropriate for their intended use as part of the cradle. Burin argued that it was Forsey’s responsibility to ensure that he was satisfied that the Vessel was properly secured.
The Court found that there was a bailment relationship between the parties and, therefore, the burden of proof reversed and Burin was required to prove that it was not negligent (as opposed to the plaintiff having to prove Burin’s negligence).
At trial, the evidence showed that materials associated with the Vessel’s cradle and supports were owned by Burin and Burin had, at all times, physical and managerial control. Further those materials were found to have been left unattended and exposed to the elements and were not properly maintained. The Court found that, while provided at no cost, Burin was still responsible to ensure that the materials were fit for the purpose of the job at hand.
The fitness of the materials then was a key issue. To meet the burden that it was not negligent, Burin would have had to produce the cribbing materials in question for examination and likely expert examination to determine their fitness. Burin could not meet its burden, however, because the cribbing materials could not be produced. The plaintiff tendered evidence (and the Court found) that the subject cradling materials had been removed by Burin prior to the attendance of the surveyor hired to inspect the Vessel post loss. The Court also found that this removal of the subject cradling materials or spoliation of evidence was done with the intent to thwart an inspection by the assigned surveyor.
 My conclusion in this regard raises a rebuttable presumption that the evidence was unfavourable to the Defendant [Burin], that is, that the cribbing materials used to construct the cradle were unsound and unfit. The burden is on the Defendant to rebut this presumption by showing that it did not intend to destroy evidence relevant to existing or contemplated litigation.
 In my opinion, the Defendant has not provided sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Court found that Burin had been negligent in the selection and use of inadequate cribbing materials for the construction of the cradle and that it had not met its burden of showing that the loss had occurred without its negligence.
Before agreeing to lift the Vessel out of the water, Burin had required that certain paperwork be signed; specifically, the “Statement of Acceptance of Responsibility” (the “Statement”). The Statement included various clauses that attempted to ensure that Burin’s customers shouldered any risk of loss, damage or injury to the Vessel at any time along with providing indemnification for Burin on a variety of bases.
Madam Justice Heneghan found that the wording of all of the exclusion clauses failed to protect Burin against its negligence regarding the storage and security of the Vessel.
Judgment was found for Forsey in the sum of $269,206.38.
Burin appealed the Judgment on the basis that the trial judge erred in drawing an adverse inference that the missing subject cradling materials were disposed of to prevent Forsey’s surveyor from examining them. Burin argued that there was no evidence to support the finding that Burin had intentionally disposed of the materials. Burin claimed to have never been given an opportunity to rebut the presumption that it had disposed of the evidence and so there was procedural unfairness.
On the issue of procedural fairness, the Court of Appeal found that Burin’s counsel knew of the spoliation issue at pretrial, the joint book of authorities (*2) contained case law on spoliation and there was an allegation that Burin had disposed of the subject cradling materials. Therefore, there was no procedural unfairness and this ground of appeal was dismissed.
The more significant issue on appeal was whether the trial judge had made a palpable and overriding error in finding that the subject cradling materials had been intentionally removed prior to arrival of the surveyor so as to prevent him from examining them, that the materials had been destroyed intentionally to negatively affect the litigation and that Burin had not offered any proof to disprove the inference made by the Judge.
Interestingly the Court of Appeal noted that it would have been reluctant to conclude that Burin had intentionally disposed of the subject cribbing materials. However, the Court of Appeal, in dismissing this ground of appeal, went on to find that, given that the trial judge had found that bailment applied and the burden was on Burin to prove it was not negligent, the finding that Burin had disposed of the subject cribbing with the intention to thwart the litigation was unnecessary. Burin simply could not prove that it was not negligent without producing the subject cribbing materials to prove that the subject cribbing materials were fit for the job at hand. The fact that it had disposed of the subject cribbing materials intentionally had no effect on the burden it had to (and failed to) meet.
With regard to the exclusionary clauses, the Court of Appeal examined the wording in each paragraph of the Statement finding that none specifically excluded Burin’s own negligence as required and so none were applicable. The notice and signs erected on the premises further did not apply to the situation in the case.
The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge had found that Burin had taken over the responsibility of “securing” the Vessel by the acts of its employees while the Vessel was on the Burin premises. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that, after review of the ordinary and grammatical meaning of the word “securing” consistent with relevant surrounding circumstances, it could not have been the intention of the parties that the word “securing” meant that Forsey was responsible for securing the Vessel during the period of repairs (*3). The trial judge also found that Forsey’s evidence in this regard was more believable. Burin further did not purport to act for Forsey.
As a result, the Court of Appeal found that Burin, having taken over the obligation of securing the Vessel, was bound to secure it properly and could not escape liability.
At trial, the Federal Court in Burin Peninsula Marine Services Centre v. Maxwell Forsey appropriately applied the doctrine of spoliation as a rule of evidence and ultimately dismissed the claim when Burin failed to successfully rebut the presumption that it intentionally destroyed evidence to thwart the litigation (though the Court of Appeal confirmed on other grounds).
The doctrine of “spoliation” is, as indicated, a rule of evidence in Canada, which means that the case will not be dismissed summarily upon the finding of intentional destruction of relevant evidence, but rather an “adverse inference” by the court that the destroyed evidence was adverse to that party will impact on the weight or persuasiveness of that party’s evidence at trial.
In the United States, spoliation of relevant evidence is an independent tort as opposed to a rule of evidence possibly impacting upon the spoliator’s case. Therefore, motions to dismiss actions where there has been proven spoliation can be brought by the opposing parties or sanctions imposed, for example. There are cases where, mid trial, actions have been dismissed, damages reduced and/or costs imposed on the spoliating party or upon their counsel (*4).
If it is established that the conduct of the respondents resulted in harm to the plaintiff by making it impossible for her to prove her claim, then it will be for the trial judge, in the context of a complete record, to determine whether the plaintiff should have a remedy. This is how the progress of the common law is marked in cases of first impression, where the court has created a new cause of action where none had been recognized before. I need refer only to Donoghue v. Stevenson,  A.C. 562 (H.L.), as but one example … I can see no reason why the trial judge should be precluded from considering all possible remedies, including a separate tort, on the basis of the record that will be developed.
 There is not a great deal of case law in Canada on the doctrine of spoliation. The tort of spoliation has been described as novel in Canada. See Spasic Estate v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (2000), 2000 CanLII 17170 (ON CA), 49 O.R. (3d) 699 (C.A.) at para. 12.
The courts have not yet found that the intentional destruction of evidence gives rise to an intentional tort, nor that there is a duty to preserve evidence for purposes of the law of negligence, although these issues, in most jurisdictions, remain open.
In Canada, “We are not saying no forever, but (we’re) just not ready”, to paraphrase recent Conservative Party ads this past election. It appears that it may be some time before spoliation will be considered a tort in Canada.
(*2) At trial, parties cooperate to consolidate a joint book of case law for the judge(s) review.
(*3) See Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53,  2 S.C.R. 633 at paragraphs 47 and 48 regarding the principles of contractual interpretation and the associated standard of review.
(*4) See for example Lester v. Allied Concrete (Virginia Cir. Crt 2011), where the injured plaintiff deleted his Facebook account in the midst of litigation, with his counsel’s approval. The Court found that such action was intended to affect the outcome of the litigation and costs were awarded against both the plaintiff and personally against his lawyer.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.