During a negligence jury trial arising from a boating accident causing severe injuries to a swimmer, the court was asked to determine the admissibility of statements allegedly made by homeowners acknowledging the danger of swimming behind their dock.
The defendants argued that the statements formed part of an apology and were therefore inadmissible under the Apology Act, 2009.
The court conducted a contextual analysis of the statements and held that expressions of regret must be excluded but that independent factual statements could remain admissible.
Portions containing apologies were ordered redacted while separate statements acknowledging prior warnings about the danger of swimming behind the dock were permitted as evidence.
