SCC Landmark Decision on Digital Evidence Destruction & Spoliation (SS&C v. BNY Mellon)

On July 31, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a major ruling on what happens when a party intentionally destroys or hides digital evidence before or during a lawsuit. The decision updates Canada's spoliation rules for the digital era, setting a clear four-part test and requiring courts to presume that destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the party that destroyed it. For legal and risk leaders, this transforms digital record preservation from a routine IT task into an urgent compliance priority. Failing to pause automated deletion protocols quickly can now derail a company's defense and trigger severe court penalties.

Facts of the Case

In SS&C Technologies Canada Corp. v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 2026 SCC 29 (decided July 31, 2026), the dispute centered on allegations that financial institution BNY Mellon breached a licensing agreement by sharing proprietary software data with unauthorized affiliates. Shortly after discovering the issue, plaintiff SS&C requested that BNY Mellon preserve all relevant digital records. However, BNY Mellon failed to retain complete digital logs, leaving an evidentiary gap where it could only account for a portion of the licensed data in question.

Why It Matters for Legal & Compliance

This ruling significantly raises the stakes for corporate data retention policies and automatic IT cleanup systems. The Supreme Court made it clear that once a formal preservation demand is received, a company is on notice to keep relevant digital records, moving the legal duty to preserve from the moment a lawsuit is actually filed to when litigation is simply "reasonably contemplated".

Strategic Insight: The decision gives opposing parties a powerful tactical tool early in commercial disputes. Because the trigger for "reasonably contemplated" litigation can be as simple as a warning letter or preservation demand, an opponent can use one to instantly require a lock-down on a company's IT systems. If automated wiping or routine record cleanup keeps running after that notice, the lost data can easily be treated as intentional destruction under the Court's test. To avoid this trap, legal teams and IT staff must work in lockstep to ensure routine data deletion can be paused immediately when a demand comes in.

Want daily regulatory updates delivered straight to your inbox? Subscribe to the Reg Compliance Hub here.

The Court Decision

Addressing the legal doctrine of spoliation for the first time in over a century, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the appeal and sent the case back to the trial court to reassess damages. The Court established a formal four-part test to prove spoliation:

1. Evidence was intentionally destroyed, altered, or hidden.
2. Litigation was ongoing or reasonably anticipated when the destruction happened.
3. The destroyed evidence was relevant to the legal dispute.
4. It is reasonable to infer the destruction was intended to affect the litigation.

When these four elements are met, the court presumes the destroyed evidence would have harmed the destroying party's case. Unless that party can disprove the presumption, the trial judge must draw mandatory adverse inferences to fill the missing evidence gap. The Court emphasized that destroying evidence is an abuse of process carrying severe penalties, such as striking out a defense, awarding heavy costs or punitive damages, or finding the party in contempt.

Action Items for Organizations

To guard against potential spoliation claims, organizations should consider these practical steps:

• Review Data Retention Schedules: Ensure automated electronic deletion tools can be paused quickly and selectively across systems.
  
• Establish a Litigation Hold Workflow: Build a fast-response process that directly connects legal counsel, compliance officers, and IT data governance teams.
  
• Centralize Notice Logging: Create a standardized process for receiving, logging, and escalating third-party preservation demands as soon as they arrive.
  
• Conduct Cross-Departmental Training: Ensure business leaders understand that the legal duty to save records starts when a lawsuit is reasonably expected, long before formal court papers are served.

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek legal or tax advice from their professional advisers regarding their specific regulatory and legal obligations.

Want daily regulatory updates delivered straight to your inbox? Subscribe to the Reg Compliance Hub here.