The Apology Act makes it so any apology cannot be used as evidence in a civil proceeding. But the Act goes farther as it defines "Apology" to include statements about fault or liability if they're included in the 'apology.' This very broad definition does not keep with the true purpose of the Apology Act; getting accident victims important closure by hearing "I'm sorry."
Instead, according to Queen’s law professor Erik Knutsen, the Act really appears aimed at helping potential defendants dodge the admissibility of certain statements in a civil court proceeding. It helps those who "injured" feel better, not the victims. The Act was likely in response not to victims' rights groups but those concerned about high risk, litigious behaviour – the medical community and insurers.
In the end, the Act turns the very purpose of protecting an 'apology' on its head, to benefit the injurer, because the definition of 'apology' is too broad, he says.
Professor Erik KnutsenEmail: firstname.lastname@example.orgProfessor Knutsen is in the faculty of Law at Queen’s University where he teaches torts, insurance and civil procedure.
To arrange an interview, please contact Jeff Drake at 613.533.2877 email@example.com or Stephanie Earp at 613.533.6000 ext. 79173 firstname.lastname@example.org.