Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Jagdeo, (1980) 5 Man.R.(2d) 159 (CoCt)
Court | Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada) |
Case Date | June 18, 1980 |
Jurisdiction | Manitoba |
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-
Moss (Bankrupt), Re,
...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.)......
-
Moss (Bankrupt), Re,
...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.)......