Illidge v. Sona Resources Corporation
The transcript may assist the judge but is not the evidence and should be marked only for identification; the recording itself is the exhibit and constitutes the evidence at trial.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2016 BCSC 2662
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Thomas James Illidge; Plaintiff: David Davis White; Defendant: Sona Resources Corporation
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 November 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Trial / Oral Ruling on Admissibility of Transcript During Trial
- Outcome
- Transcript marked for identification; recording admitted as the exhibit and evidence at trial.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Transcript, Recorded Conversations, Exhibit Marking, Judge's Reliance on Transcript
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thomas James Illidge
Plaintiff
David Davis White
Plaintiff
Sona Resources Corporation
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Oral Ruling on Admissibility of Transcript During Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a transcript of a recorded conversation may be marked as an exhibit
- 2 Whether the transcript constitutes the evidence or the recording does
Ratio Decidendi
The transcript may assist the judge but is not the evidence and should be marked only for identification; the recording itself is the exhibit and constitutes the evidence at trial.
Court Disposition
Transcript marked for identification; recording admitted as the exhibit and evidence at trial.
Orders
- Transcript marked as an exhibit for identification
- Recording to serve as the exhibit and the evidence at trial
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
2016 BCSC 2662 Illidge v. Sona Resources Corporation IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Illidge v. Sona Resources Corporation, 2016 BCSC 2662 Date: 20161129 Docket: S151905 Registry: Vancouver Between: Thomas James Illidge David Davis White Plaintiffs And Sona Resources Corporation Defendant Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Gray Oral Ruling Regarding Admissibility of Transcript of Conversation Counsel for the Plaintiffs: D. Harbottle Counsel for Defendant: A. Crabtree Place and Dates of Trial: Vancouver, B.C. November 28-30, 2016 December 1, 2016 Place and Date of Ruling: Vancouver, B.C. November 29, 2016 [1] THE COURT: I am being asked to mark as an exhibit a transcript of a conversation. The transcript was apparently prepared by someone at Mr. Harbottle's office. I have not seen the transcript nor heard the conversation. Mr. Harbottle seeks to mark the transcript as an exhibit. Mr. Crabtree objects. He suggests that the recording can be played, and the transcript could be used if there is a problem with someone's memory, but he says it is not appropriate to mark as an exhibit. [2] In my view, a transcript is not the evidence. If the relevant evidence is what was actually said between the people in the conversation, the evidence should be the recording. [3] It is often helpful for me as a judge to have a transcript. If the parties have not agreed on the transcript, then I will have to listen to the tape recording. I may have to make my own transcript. It will probably be of assistance if I can have the transcript but, in my view, it should be marked as an exhibit for identification, and the recording itself can be the exhibit at trial. "Gray J."