admissibility of evidence

[nooracle]

We are three parties. The case was set down for trial. Two parties
abandoned the case. The adverse party says I have no right to use evidence brought in by abandoning parties - it says if I do not accept the inadmissibility of the evidence they will bring in the motion with costs against me. Can they demand of me to not insist on my right to use such evidence even if the parties who brought it in dismissed the case?

 

[army judge]

We are three parties. The case was set down for trial. Two parties
abandoned the case. The adverse party says I have no right to use evidence brought in by abandoning parties - it says if I do not accept the inadmissibility of the evidence they will bring in the motion with costs against me. Can they demand of me to not insist on my right to use such evidence even if the parties who brought it in dismissed the case?

This is a US based forum.
We do, however, share an English common law tradition.

That said, I wouldn't knuckle under to threats that I could defend.
Of course, neither of you can agree, that is why you're in court.
I'd litigate the matter.
The other party doesn't decide what evidence gets admitted.
The judge does that.
If you lose, you lose because the judge ruled the items inadmissible.
The opposing party doesn't make that decision.

 

[nooracle]

Thank you. I cannot make a motion after setting the matter down to trial; if formally I accept admissibility only of my personal evidence (the adverse party formula saying:"the Order [to dismiss the case by other parties] does not adversely affect the action of the Plaintiff"), how good chances are that the judge at the beginning of the hearing would accept my arguments for admissibility of the evidence of the parties who abandoned the case in spite of my sign-up of the Order to the contrary?
If I don't accept the terms of the adverse party they will make a motion (and this is a state corporation with expenses covered from budget and defended by one of the biggest law firms in Canada; the legal system in Ontario, by the way, is very corrupted-that's why those two parties decided to abandon the case), would I be able to appeal the decision over this presumably procedural issue at appeal court?

 

[mightymoose]

This may depend upon what the evidence is.
If the evidence is some sort of statements or testimony made by the parties that have abandoned the case, then you might have some trouble.
As said though, it will be for a judge to decide what is allowed. Don't give in to their silly threats.
I would consider such threats a good sign that you have a good case.

 

[nooracle]

Thank you very much. I communicated to the adverse party on my insisting to have the evidence preserved: they told me they are going to put the question before a pre-trial judge. But I am not sure that the pre-trial judge is the right person. In my opinion, it should be the trial judge. Could it be indicative of the corruption? Our case first was deliberated upon by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. They found violations committed by the adverse party (state corporation). At the time you could both to go to the commission and court. Then (under former partner of the law firm, who represents the adverse party, as Attorney General of Ontario) the OHR Commission and Tribunal adopt a new Code. The Code forbids going first to the court then to the Commission. But even despite the fact that we went to the Commission first the Vice-Chair of the Tribunal (former partner of the law firm which closely cooperate -even by exchange of employees-with the law firm defending the adverse party) our case was dismissed on the pretext that one can't go to both at all. The hearing at the tribunal was to take place last year, exactly one year before hearing at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. But instead closing this matter at the court, it was closed at the Tribunal. And it is not all.

 

[nooracle]

Before adoption of a new Code an applicant applied to the Commission which, after investigation, referred the case to the Tribunal, as it was in our case. By new rules the applications carried and transferred by the Commission to the Tribunal before June 31, 2008 (when a new Code was enacted) are regarded as "as though" transmitted directly to the Tribunal as stipulated by the new Code. We applied to the Commission in 2004 and court, 2005. But because that phrase "as though under new Code " we are regarded as if applied to the Tribunal instead of the Commission in...2008!!! Moreover, applications made and referred by the Commission to the Tribunal before June 31, 2008 are dealt with under terms of the new Code but those referred to the Tribunal by the Commission after that date (during 6 months period) are regarded under terms of the old Code! I have a feeling that the new Code was specifically manipulated in such a way so that to dismiss our applications. After that the adverse party sent us the message that because this case was closed at the Tribunal if we proceed with the action at court they will put the whole weight of costs on us. Two parties on the side of the plaintiffs said they do not believe in Ontario justice system and dismissed the case, me remaining alone in it.

 

[army judge]

You're into trial and civil procedure.
If you make a misstep, you damage or destroy your case.

Do yourself justice, before that galena inadvertently. Speak with a barrister. It'll cost you some money, but might be well worth it in the long run.

Barring your ability to speak with a barrister (or a solicitor), you could try a legal aid society. Some law schools have clinics. They are supervised by law professors. They are very clever at understanding these legal nuances. They are often willing to give you solid advice.

Please, be careful. Your case depends on what you do next!

 

[nooracle]

The only remaining plaintiff in this case is me. The Affidavit of documents, delivered by Defendants, included documents relating to two other plaintiffs who decided to abandon the case. Now the Defendants are going to move to prevent me from using this evidence. The withdrawal of this evidence would nearly ruin my chances to win in the proceedings. What arguments against the withdrawal of evidence could I produce? What chances are the Defendants will be successful in withdrawing the evidence?