|
Date:
Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:08:55 -0300
From:
Vaughan Black
Subject:
Article on apology provisions
It's
interesting (at least for Canadians) to speculate on what effect,
if any, BC's attempts to make evidence of apologies inadmissible
in subsequent proceedings would have in subsequent proceedings governed
by the Canada Evidence Act -- say, proceedings under the Criminal
Code of Canada or some civil proceedings in the Federal Court of
Canada. Is it constitutional for a Canadian province to deal with
evidence law in such matters?
vb
Quoting
Russell Brown:
British
Columbia has also just adopted an "apology" provision
- in fact, a whole statute, the "Apology
Act".
The
BC statute includes similar provisions to those set out in the NSW
and UK legislation, but it also deals with insurance coverage, providing
that an "apology" (which is excruciatingly defined) "does
not, despite any wording to the contrary in any contract of insurance
and despite any other enactment, void, impair or otherwise affect
any insurance coverage that is available, or that would, but for
the apology, be available, to the person in connection with that
matter ...."
It
also provides that "evidence of an apology made by or on behalf
of a person in connection with any matter is not admissible in any
proceeding and must not be referred to or disclosed to a court in
any proceeding as evidence of the fault or liability of the person
in connection with that matter." That seems to preclude not
only the plaintiff testifying to the defendant's apology, but also
the defendant from testifying to his/her own apology (which s/he
might want to do in order, for example, to defeat a claim for punitive
damages).
<<<<
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next
Message >>>>>
| 