Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 155
…
Liability for acts of servants
10. No proceedings lie against
the Crown by virtue of
subparagraph 3(a)(i) or (b)(i) in
respect of any act or omission
of a servant of the Crown unless
the act or omission would, apart
from the provisions of this Act,
have given rise to a cause of
action for liability against that
servant or the servant’s personal
representative or succession.
Responsabilité quant aux actes
de préposés
10. L’État ne peut être
poursuivi, sur le fondement des
sous-alinéas 3a)(i) ou b)(i),
pour les actes ou omissions de
ses préposés que lorsqu’il y a
lieu en l’occurrence, compte
non tenu de la présente loi, à
une action en responsabilité
contre leur auteur, ses
représentants personnels ou sa
succession.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
(ii)
Burden of Proof
[605] This is a civil action where the burden of proving the case lies upon the Plaintiffs. The
burden of proof in a civil action is proof on the balance of probabilities, a burden that was discussed
recently by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41
where the Court said the following:
46 Similarly, evidence must always be sufficiently clear,
convincing and cogent to satisfy the balance of probabilities test. But
again, there is no objective standard to measure sufficiency. In
serious cases, like the present, judges may be faced with evidence of
events that are alleged to have occurred many years before, where
there is little other evidence than that of the plaintiff and defendant.
As difficult as the task may be, the judge must make a decision. If a
responsible judge finds for the plaintiff, it must be accepted that the
evidence was sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to that judge
that the plaintiff satisfied the balance of probabilities test.
…