How to find status of criminal prosecution (Alberta, Canada) Calgary men charged after 864 investors lose $33M in Crowsnest Pass development Jun 10, 2016 I can't find any further news about this. I tried contacting CBC but got no reply. (Not to be confused with a related civil suit involving Becker and Bradley.)
It appears you would need to contact the Calgary courts directly to discover more about the case(s) as any case files will likely be held with them. It's possible that the case was dropped, or that they were found &quot;not guilty&quot; which would explain the lack of further news on them. I searched the Canadian Legal Information Institute's website for you but wasn't able to find any criminal cases involving them — only some civil cases around bankruptcy and creditor claims.
Mongolia apparently has a list of banned words (list is NSFW) that websites can't use. And according to this State Department report: Additionally, the regulation requires Web sites with heavy traffic to use filtering software that makes the user Internet Protocol addresses of those commenting or sharing content publicly visible. The report also says: The law places the burden of proof on the defendant in libel and slander cases, and both defamation and insult are criminal charges. NGOs reported that these laws were used more frequently than in previous years to control the press. Canada is probably a better choice, even if it isn't perfect.
Spoliation of evidence, once a suit is filed The reason Bob requests the video from Alice Corp is not that he is concerned about his GDPR rights, it is because he wants to file a lawsuit. In fact, it would be super helpful if Bob had filed the lawsuit and served it together with the GDPR request, so there is a pending case... and added a paragraph that he demands the preservation of all evidence at that point. In either case, the sudden deletion of the files by their DPO Charly, after Alice Corp was put on legal notice that they have to preserve evidence, is spoliation, indeed, it would be the very definition: The intentional destruction or alteration of relevant evidence in existing or pending litigation. 1 The main remedy for spoliation is the imposition of a rebuttable presumption of fact that the lost or destroyed evidence would have been unfavourable to the party that destroyed it. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing that the “spoliator” did not intend to affect the litigation by destroying the evidence (McDougall v. Black &amp; Decker Canada Inc., 2008 CarswellAlta 1686 (Alta. C.A.)). So, we have the DPO performing spoliation, and thus the lawsuit for the beating will assume that the destroyed video showed exactly what Bob alleged that Alice Corp's security team did to him. in england-and-wales DPO Charly can be further sued for destroying evidence under Section 2 (16) Criminal Justice Act 1987. Spoliation might even happen before the case begins with filing &amp; summons According to an article by Chris Dale, discussion spoliation in england-and-wales the case of Earles v Barclays Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 2500 (Mercantile) (08 October 2009) was named as one of the best descriptions of spoliation in English law. That case indeed is illustrative, as it might be explicitly applicable to the case as described (emphasis mine): 28 [I]n this jurisdiction [Bermingham/England] as in Australia, there is no duty to preserve documents prior to the commencement of proceedings: British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v. Cowell [2002] V.S.C.A. 197, a decision approved in this country by Morritt V.C. in Douglas v. Hello [2003] EWHC 55 at [86]. However, the leading text book in this area – Documentary Evidence by Charles Hollander QC- suggests in paragraph 10-06 of the 10th edition that &quot;there might be cases where it was appropriate to draw adverse inferences from a party's conduct before the commencement of proceedings.&quot; In my judgment there would have to be some clear evidence of deliberate spoliation in anticipation of litigation before one could legitimately draw evidential &quot;adverse inferences&quot; in those circumstances. There is no such evidential basis in this case. 29 After the commencement of proceedings the situation is radically different. In Woods v. Martins Bank Ltd [1959] 1 Q.B. 55 at 60, Salmon J. said &quot;It cannot be too clearly understood that solicitors owe a duty to the court, as officers of the court to make sure, as far as possible, that no relevant documents have been omitted from their client's list&quot;. 30 In the case of documents not preserved after the commencement of proceedings then the defaulting party risk &quot;adverse inferences&quot; being drawn for such &quot;spoliation&quot;: Infabricks Ltd v. Jaytex Ltd [1985] FSR 75. So, yes, we got it in a judgment from the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Birmingham District Registry, Mercantile Court: if it is extremely likely, that proceedings will begin shortly, destroying the video might be spoliation in anticipation of litigation, and thus be problematic even before proceedings started. As a remedy, an adverse inference might be drawn to the content of it. 1 - RESOURCE ID W-015-7809 © 2022 THOMSON REUTERS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
They could be prosecuted in any state where there was evidence that part of the crime was committed. Realistically, either State A or State B could prosecute for conspiracy to murder as an additional charge, because the conspiracy clearly spanned more than one state, even if they can't prove where the crime was committed, although physical evidence (e.g. traces of camp sites, footprints, testimony about landmarks, evidence of poop with human DNA from the victim in it), would usually make it possible to show that some part of the crime was committed in the state. There is probably also a federal crime that could be implicated such as "murder involving flight across a state line" (hypothetical, but I'm sure that there is something similar on the books). I'm not going to address the further hypothetical as it is too bizzare and law is ultimately very context specific. Find a more plausible fact pattern, perhaps with a different crime, and ask a separate question if you want to really address the issue.
You can try, however, a US court when considering if it has jurisdiction will doubtless ask you to explain why a Canadian business wants to sue a Canadian company for an unpaid debt in Canadian dollars for services provided in Canada in a US court. If you can satisfy them that a US court is the appropriate venue (which I doubt) they will hear the case.
As an academic matter, the US system has struggled with this, and law professors spend their lives debating it. As a realistic matter, I'd bet that company in your example gets nailed. On the theory, the issue here is but-for cause. Civil liability requires that the jury find it more likely than not, or over 50% likely, that but-for D's actions, P's injuries would not have occurred. Your hypo puts it at exactly 50, and tie goes to the defendant, so in this case even the theory is clear. But, say you change it a little bit to make it more like 65 or 70%. Now, you're getting into the territory of the classic blue bus case. A man is hit by a blue bus. Two companies in town own blue busses, and one company owns 90% of them. Can he recover against that company with no other evidence? The black letter answer is no, that naked statistical evidence doesn't cut it. The rationale is that if it were the other way, anytime someone got hit by a blue bus, that company would automatically have to pay out unless they had some evidence to disprove their liability. The burden of proof has been shifted, violating a fundamental tenet of our legal system. But, this doctrine obviously poses an issue for plaintiffs like yours. It's one thing to say that someone hit by a bus needs to have more evidence. Theoretically, they could go out and get it: they could find the bus routes and schedules, examine where they were, and show that X company had a bus going by there at that time. They can also canvas for witnesses. It's much harder when, as your excellent hypo touches on, the science is so complicated. One controversial solution that has been debated a lot recently is market-share liability, but that doesn't seem pertinent here because you have mentioned another company. On the legal realist side. As far as I can tell the system usually finds a way to hold the company responsible. One example is the tobacco litigation. My understanding is the science couldn't definitively prove that smoking caused cancer, but it could prove that it raised the risk significantly. Here's some information on that https://www.tortmuseum.org/the-tobacco-cases/ from the American Museum of Tort Law, which, yes, is a real thing.
Probably not In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the tort of negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. What standard of conduct do you think your employer failed to conform with? Owning a tree or a parking lot is not, of itself, negligent. Further, the branch fell "during high winds" - the wind is not within your employer's control. Now, if you can prove that your employer knew that the particular tree was ill and likely to drop branches in high winds and failed to do anything about it, that might be considered negligent. I know of a case where a council who had refused permission for a tree to be removed because it was "healthy" was found negligent when that tree latter (in calm winds) dropped a branch on Jaguar.
Important story, but BoingBoing also doubts the BBC's wording. It could be an attempted summary of a previous story on BBC Newsnight on 18 July: Lord Porter of Spalding, a former bricklayer, alleged corporations were running tests on the safety of their high-rise building materials but refusing to share the results. Releasing the results could allow residents and local authorities to know if their buildings are at risk of a fire following the Grenfell catastrophe which claimed the lives of at least 80 people. There Lord Porter was talking about results commissioned by private companies including manufacturers, where the labs wouldn't provide information because of 'intellectual property rights' of the client, or presumably commercial confidentiality. Under these situations, it is said the private concerns have no obligation to disclose. If this is what the BBC story was referring to, then at least investigations by government or third parties wanting to reveal characteristics of the products wouldn't have a copyright (or patent etc) problem.