<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Canadian Courts Tell Those Tempted by Spoliation Claims to &#8220;Deal With It&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.slaw.ca/2009/12/02/canadian-courts-tell-those-tempted-by-spoliation-claims-to-deal-with-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.slaw.ca/2009/12/02/canadian-courts-tell-those-tempted-by-spoliation-claims-to-deal-with-it/</link>
	<description>A Canadian cooperative weblog on all things legal.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:58:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Michaluk</title>
		<link>http://www.slaw.ca/2009/12/02/canadian-courts-tell-those-tempted-by-spoliation-claims-to-deal-with-it/comment-page-1/#comment-708949</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Michaluk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:46:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.slaw.ca/?p=14708#comment-708949</guid>
		<description>Funny enough, today the OCA issued a judgment today explaining the standard for a Charter-based remedy for loss of evidence where there is a non-culpable reason for the loss:

&lt;blockquote&gt;  An accused’s right to make full answer and defence is not automatically breached every time he or she is deprived of relevant information. Rather, as the Supreme Court stated in R. v. La (1997), 116 C.C.C. (3d) 97 at paras. 24 and 25, where the Crown has met its duty of explaining the circumstances of the loss of any missing evidence, in order to make out a breach of s. 7 on the ground of lost evidence, “the accused must establish actual prejudice to his or her right to make full answer and defence.” &lt;/blockquote&gt;

This statement was made in the context of lost preliminary inquiry tape. See &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2009/december/2009ONCA0850.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;R. v. J.P&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny enough, today the OCA issued a judgment today explaining the standard for a Charter-based remedy for loss of evidence where there is a non-culpable reason for the loss:</p>
<blockquote><p>  An accused’s right to make full answer and defence is not automatically breached every time he or she is deprived of relevant information. Rather, as the Supreme Court stated in R. v. La (1997), 116 C.C.C. (3d) 97 at paras. 24 and 25, where the Crown has met its duty of explaining the circumstances of the loss of any missing evidence, in order to make out a breach of s. 7 on the ground of lost evidence, “the accused must establish actual prejudice to his or her right to make full answer and defence.” </p></blockquote>
<p>This statement was made in the context of lost preliminary inquiry tape. See <em><a href="http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2009/december/2009ONCA0850.htm">R. v. J.P</a></em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
