Spoliation of Evidence. Armstrong v. Moore
In Armstrong v. Moore (Ont CA, 2020) the Court of Appeal held that spoliation of evidence did not justify awarding punitive damages (yet). This is my mind makes it a candidate for tort status soon:
 However, we defer to another day whether a court is entitled to rely on spoliation of evidence as providing a basis for awarding punitive damages. Ontario jurisprudence has yet to resolve definitively whether spoliation is a cause action: See Spasic Estate v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (2000), 2000 CanLII 17170 (ON CA), 49 O.R. (3d) 699 (C.A.), at paras. 12, 22; leave to appeal refused,  S.C.C.A. No. 547. In our view, that issue need not and should not be resolved in this appeal.. Kiden Used Furniture v. Pearson
In Kiden Used Furniture v. Pearson (Ont CA, 2015) the Court of Appeal stated with respect to spoilation of evidence that:
The usual remedy for spoliation is a presumption that the destroyed evidence would have been unfavourable to the party who destroyed it. But this adverse evidence inference is not capable of being positive proof of the landlord’s negligence. The appellant had the obligation of establishing that negligence and causation could be proven at trial and failed to do so on the motion.