Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Jagdeo, (1980) 5 Man.R.(2d) 159 (CoCt)

CourtProvincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
Case DateJune 18, 1980
JurisdictionManitoba
Citations(1980), 5 Man.R.(2d) 159 (CoCt)

TD Bk. v. Jagdeo (1980), 5 Man.R.(2d) 159 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Jagdeo

Indexed As: Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Jagdeo

Manitoba County Court

Kennedy, C.C.J.

June 18, 1980.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Evidence - Topic 104

Degree, standard or burden of proof - Standard or degree of proof - Proof of crime in civil case - The plaintiff bank brought an action for conversion against one of its employees, claiming that the employee stole $3,662.00 of foreign exchange - The employee had already pleaded guilty to a charge of theft of $2,200.00 - The Manitoba County Court dismissed the action - The County Court discussed the standard of proof of theft by the employee and held that, while it was clear that the employee was dishonest, the plaintiff failed to prove the amount stolen.

Evidence - Topic 1500

Hearsay rule - Definition and general rule - The plaintiff bank brought an action for conversion against one of its employees, claiming that the employee stole $3,662.00 of foreign exchange - The plaintiff called a bank investigator to testify about the amount of foreign exchange which was missing, but his figures depended upon statistical information compiled by other investigators - The Manitoba County Court dismissed the action, because the amount taken was not proved - The County Court held that the plaintiff could not rely upon the statistical information about the amount missing, because it constituted hearsay - See paragraphs 7 to 10.

Practice - Topic 7021

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement - Successful party - Exceptions - Conduct - The plaintiff bank brought an action for conversion against one of its employees, claiming that the employee stole $3,662.00 in foreign exchange - It was clear that the employee was dishonest and had stolen an amount of money, but an amount was not proved - The Manitoba County Court dismissed the action, but made no order for costs, because the employee's dishonesty precipitated the action - See paragraph 20.

Cases Noticed:

Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 All E.R. 458, appld. [para. 15].

Counsel:

A. MacInnes, for the plaintiff;

N. Sunstrom, for the defendant.

This case was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, before KENNEDY, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 18, 1980:

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Moss (Bankrupt), Re,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • January 30, 2009
    ...1 (S.C.), refd to. [Schedule A]. White, Re, [1948] 1 D.L.R. 572 (N.S.S.C.), refd to. [Schedule A]. Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Jagdeo (1980), 5 Man.R.(2d) 159 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [Schedule Laurie and Laurie v. Co-Operative Fire & Casualty Co. (1980), 42 N.S.R.(2d) 634; 77 A.P.R. 634 (T.D.)......
1 cases
  • Moss (Bankrupt), Re,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • January 30, 2009
    ...1 (S.C.), refd to. [Schedule A]. White, Re, [1948] 1 D.L.R. 572 (N.S.S.C.), refd to. [Schedule A]. Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Jagdeo (1980), 5 Man.R.(2d) 159 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [Schedule Laurie and Laurie v. Co-Operative Fire & Casualty Co. (1980), 42 N.S.R.(2d) 634; 77 A.P.R. 634 (T.D.)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT