Previous month:
August 2011
Next month:
October 2011

September 2011

Civil versus Criminal - Burden of Proof

(Reminder: November 16th, 2011 is the court date for the appeal of the jurisdiction motion.)

The Oppression Remedy, our choice for pursuing justice, is a remedy for civil court. Could we have pursued justice in a criminal court? What's the difference?

The difference is the burden of proof.

Stan Rule, a B.C. lawyer and blogger- Rule of Law, posted one the best explanations regarding the burden of proof in a civil court.:

"Saturday, October 04, 2008

Burden of Proof in a Civil Lawsuit

I think most people in Canada are aware that in a criminal case in Canada, the Crown has to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But in a civil lawsuit, the standard is different. The person who has the burden of proof (usually the plaintiff making the claim) must prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities.

What does the “balance of probabilities” mean? It simply means that the judge must find that it is more likely than not that what the person who has the burden of proof says happened is the truth. The judge does not have to be free from all reasonable doubt. He or she must be able to decide if one version of events is more likely true than another version.

In some British Columbia cases, the courts have suggested that a higher standard of proof than the balance of probabilities is required if someone is making very serious allegations of wrongdoing. For example, if I say I lent you some money, but you didn’t repay me on time, I would have to prove my case on a balance of probabilities. But if I say you acted fraudulently, I would need to meet a higher standard of proof, perhaps something in between the civil standard of balance of probabilities and the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a decision released on Thursday, October 2, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the notion that a higher standard of proof than the balance of probabilities is required in a civil case."

To sum it up - the burden of proof rests on the balance of probabilities confirmed by the Supreme Court as the one and only standard for civil cases. 

What does that mean for us? Well, if you have checked our public sources of information about what we believe are oppressive actions and events then you can make your own assessment as to whether we have tipped the scale in our favor.

Imagine how discovery will tip the balance of probabilities.


PWC has removed pages.

For some reason the page we linked to in our post on February 11. 2011 was removed from the PWC website. We have relinked to another page with the similar information.

Why has PWC removed the May 22, 2009 Receivers 246 Report?

Below is the paragraph from the February blog post with a new link:

PWC Report:

The majority of the assets were sold to a private numbered company (Hammerstone Corporation - owned by Tricap, a.k.a. Brookfield Special Situations)  with the sale closing date of April 2, 2009. The lease assets were returned or new arrangements were made with the purchaser (Tricap).

"The premises were vacated in March 2009 and the remaining assets were sold to other interested parties. “ALL THE ASSETS HAVE BEEN SOLD.”

Besides - Birch Mountain no longer exists - no assets,

no management, no address.