The “Best Evidence Rule”

The Best Evidence Rule – Adverse Inference Cases referenced in this post are: Blatch v. Archer (1774), 1 Cowp. 63 R. v. Jolivet, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751 Buksh v. Miles, 2008 BCCA 318 Jin v. Spurrel, 2017 BCSC 1256 The Best Evidence Rule relates to what we know as “adverse inference” which can be drawn […]

Read more "The “Best Evidence Rule”"

Discrepancy of Evidence

This post pertains to discrepancy of evidence.  Specifically, the Courts have noted that discrepancies in evidence is not necessarily as significant as counsel may think.  Moreso, discrepancies in the evidence does not always impact the credibility of the Plaintiff. While it is important to highlight any inconsistencies or contradictions that may exist in the evidence, it is […]

Read more "Discrepancy of Evidence"

The “Benefit Revival Trilogy” Cases – Part 7 Benefits

The following three cases have been referenced as the “Benefit Revival Trilogy” cases which were referenced in Symons v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 1883 (CanLII) “Symons”, and upheld by BC Court of Appeal in Symons v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2016 BCCA 207 (CanLII): Brewer v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1999] […]

Read more "The “Benefit Revival Trilogy” Cases – Part 7 Benefits"

Successful Appeal – Admissibility of Expert Evidence – SCC “Abbey” & “Lavallee” Part 2

Tambosso v. Homes, 2016 BCCA 373 (CanLII) In our prior post, we looked at the trial decision in “Tambosso” and highlighted the importance of reviewing and analyzing the facts of your case carefully, including any contradictions or conflicts that may exist in the evidence. We reviewed the legal principles outlined in the two Supreme Court […]

Read more "Successful Appeal – Admissibility of Expert Evidence – SCC “Abbey” & “Lavallee” Part 2"