Last year I wrote about the Tort for Negligent Investigations and how this would reach out and touch a Private Investigation firm in Canada soon.
Private Investigator Sued
The Ontario Court of Appeal has expanded the tort of negligent investigation to allow employees to sue private investigators hired by employers to probe suspected wrongdoing in the workplace. The unanimous ruling by Associate Chief Justice Dennis O’Connor and Justices Marc Rosenberg and Kathryn Feldman extends the newly created tort of negligent investigation to private investigators. This tort was first recognized by the Supreme Court in 2007 as applicable to police.
In Correia v. Canac Kitchens, 2008 ONCA 506 & [2008] O.J. No. 2497, the court has imposed a new duty of care regarding investigators. The plaintiff was an innocent employee mistakenly fired and arrested for theft following a private investigation launched by his employer. His name was confused with that of another employee with a similar name. The sequence of events that led to erroneous identification of Mr. Correia is summarized in the chronology in paragraph [8].
Every Private Investigator in Canada should pay close attention to this case and the circumstances that gave rise to it.
The Ontario Divisional Court, ruled in Petti v. George Coppel Jewellers Ltd. that polygraph test results are inadmissible as evidence in Ontario civil court proceedings:
Justice Quinn reviewed the law. He said that evidence that a person has offered to submit to polygraph testing can be admissible, but that was a neutral factor here, since both parties had made such an offer. Secondly, the questions and answers from the testing can be admissible, if they constitute admissions against interest. But the test results themselves are not admissible because they usurp the jurisdiction of the trier of fact. As His Honour said, “the court should not delegate its jurisdiction, even on consent”. Hence, a new trial was ordered.
Polygraphy was disallowed in criminal proceedings in a 1987 ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada.
John J. Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, maintains a site opposed to the polygraph that has links to research articles on the efficacy of polygraph tests.
Google has begun the indexation of Facebook pages.
The best approach to find Facebook content via Google is not to simply plug in name or keyword(s)…Try adding the keyword, “Facebook” to your initial query.
What the Investigator Must Know About Facebook
In the closed community of Facebook, Google asked permission to index the pages. If you are an Investigator, and your subject is represented, then asking permission to see his or her page is contact with a represented litigant. In Canada, if the opposing litigant is represented by council, then you may not contact him or her in person, by telephone, or electronically. In most cases you have to ask to be listed as a friend to view the subject’s Facebook page. Doing this will be considered improperly making contact with the litigant and whatever you find will be deemed inadmissible.
However, what you find in Google, other search engines, and unrelated Facebook pages may be used as the basis for a motion for the production of the subject’s entire Facebook page as happened in KOURTESIS V. JORIS (2007).
An article by John Polyzogopoulos, a partner of Blaney McMurty LLP, in the January 2008 edition of the Commercial Litigation Update explains a Norwich order can help victims of fraud determine what happened to the money.
The recent decision of Justice James Spence in Isofoton S.A. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank should be of interest to anyone who suspects they may have been the victim of fraud. In that case, Justice Spence granted a Norwich order to obtain the banking records of a party suspected of defrauding the applicant of over $3 million. The unique nature of the disclosure order was that it was directed not to the alleged fraudster, but to the fraudster’s bank. The disclosure order was made to assist the applicant in investigating the fraud and determining what happened to its funds.
The article also illustrates the need for due diligence research prior to entering into an agreement with a previously unknown supplier. Once the victim realised that the supplier was not acting in good faith, they hired a PI who determined that the the supplier was a company without the assets necessary to deliver the contracted goods.
