Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:14

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: Canadian causation follies, continued

B.S.A. Investors Ltd. v. DSB, 2007 BCCA 94 (CanLII)

"[43] I would add that there is an important difference between drawing an inference as to causation from circumstantial evidence, which is often done, and drawing an inference as to causation from no relevant evidence at all, which may be done only in the rare circumstances set out above. This is the difference alluded to by Lambert J.A. in Haag when he distinguished between a logical inference and a legal one; the legal reference should not be resorted to unless the logical inference is impossible to establish with either direct or circumstantial evidence." (emphasis added)

There are many things one might describe the sort of conclusion the BCCA describes, but "inference" wouldn't be one of them, at least to me.

The decision the BCCA came to, though, as to whether the plaintiff had established factual causation, seems correct on the facts outlined in the reasons.

David Cheifetz

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>