0

So a couple of weeks ago I parked at my apartment building and when I came back to my car the following day, I found a note that I had hit the car beside me when I parked and that the other party had CCTV evidence. Of course, I did not feel it the previous day, so I went to the building manager to ask whether they can show me CCTV to confirm the claim. They said that the police had already been contacted and that they are unable to show me the footage as a result, but that they have seen it and can confirm that I had hit him. Also, the scratch marks on my vehicle and the other parties vehicle line up - but how do I know it wasn't him who hit me and is now trying to put it on me!

When the police finally reached out to me, they noted that the CCTV footage had already been deleted so now I will never be able to see it. However, they have the manager's testimony on file. Is this enough to establish a case in Ontario, Canada? Note that the damage is minor, but I'm just curious about how the evidence is weighed here.

My first experience with the law, excuse the naivity! Thanks!

Improve this question
2
  • This is an A vs B question. You want to pursue spoliation first. The apartment negligently destroyed the evidence they knew they should have preserved, so ultimately the apartment should pay the claim.
    – user71659
    Sep 20 at 22:26
  • Thanks, that's very helpful! I will look into it.
    – Trustworthy
    Sep 24 at 13:59

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

There is no rule the prevents someone from proving a case with one witness and many cases are proven that way (especially in simple debt collection cases and in factually simple criminal cases).

Of course, in practice, there is often not one witness who knows everything necessary to prove the case. One witness might prove that the accident happened and that a certain driver was at fault. Another witness might testify regarding the cost of repairing the vehicle. A third witness might testify regarding physical injuries. But if one person knows everything that needs to be proved, then one witness is enough.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .