Canada: Watching The Watchers: Judicial Limitations On The Use Of Surveillance Evidence

Last Updated: October 29 2018
Article by Lee Chitty
Presented at a Client Seminar on Surveillance

Surveillance evidence is among the most powerful tools available to a defence lawyer and their client. Correctly deployed, surveillance can be a fatal blow to a plaintiff's claim. Triers of fact, jurors particularly, cannot help but be impacted by surveillance evidence. Numerous studies show that visual memory retention far exceeds audio recall. Due to the power of surveillance evidence relative to cost, many insurers have at least some experience in obtaining this form of evidence. Since the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Iannarella v Corbett, the tactical landscape for surveillance has changed and the use of surveillance evidence has been under court scrutiny.1

What is surveillance evidence used for?

Surveillance evidence has two primary purposes at the trial of a personal injury case.

  1. Surveillance of the plaintiff can be used as a form of substantive evidence. The visual recording could depict the party's functional abilities, which assist counsel in limiting or disproving a plaintiff's claim.

  2. Surveillance can be called as impeachment evidence, or as a tool used to undermine the plaintiff's credibility.

Surveillance intended to be substantive evidence at trial must be produced to the opposite party at least 90 days before the commencement of trial.2 Alternatively, it is possible to use it with leave of the Court.3 By contrast, surveillance intended as impeachment evidence need not be produced but must be disclosed in Schedule "B" of the party's affidavit of documents.

Timing the Surveillance

When an insurer and counsel make the tactical decision to obtain surveillance evidence, it is common practice to surveil a plaintiff sporadically over the course of several months. An investigator's observations can occur anytime between the start of an action and when that action reaches trial. Regardless of the timing, defendants need to remain attentive to their disclosure and production responsibilities under the Rules.4

The law regarding disclosure of surveillance obtained before discoveries is well settled. Surveillance must be listed in the defendant's affidavit of documents. At discoveries, the defendant is required, upon request by the plaintiff, to provide a summary of the surveillance that has been obtained to that point. The summary must include the date, time, and place of the surveillance, the nature and duration of the activities depicted, as well as the names and addresses of the investigators.

Defendants are not required to produce the surveillance video unless the defendant wishes to use it as substantial evidence at trial. If privilege is not waived over the surveillance, the defendant can only use the surveillance at trial to impeach a plaintiff's credibility.

With respect to surveillance that takes place after discovery but before trial, Iannarella resolved the previously unclear law and ruled the defendant must disclose the particulars of this surveillance as well. As a result of the Iannarella decision, defendants must provide particulars of post-discovery surveillance to plaintiffs. Disclosure is mandatory irrespective of whether the defendant intends to rely on it for substantive or impeachment purposes.

As was always the case, a defendant intending to use surveillance for substantive purposes must produce it to the plaintiff at least 90 days before trial. The mandatory disclosure obligation set out in Iannarella is something that claims examiners and defence counsel will need to keep in mind when considering whether to conduct post-discovery surveillance.5

Putting surveillance to work

Use of surveillance as substantive evidence:

Counsel planning on using surveillance evidence as substantive evidence must ensure they meet the disclosure rules as set out in the Rules. Subject to the Rule 30.09 exception, surveillance not properly disclosed is limited to impeachment uses only. Case law shows that Rule 30.09 is strictly enforced.

In Youseff v Cross, Justice Granger captured the strategic dilemma defense counsel face in this regard.6

"Admittedly the defendant is faced with a dilemma as production of the video might detract from the effect of the impeachment process."7

Unsympathetically, however, he stated

"[t]he present rules of civil procedure, are designed to facilitate the production of documents including videos, if they are to be used as real evidence, in order to avoid what has commonly been referred to as "trial by ambush" ... if the videos are to be used as substantive evidence, the privilege must be waived and production made prior to the trial."8

The strict enforcement of 30.09 was positively endorsed in later cases including Giroux v LaFrance,9 Landfoli v Fargione,10 and Smith v Morelly.11 By the time the issue reaches Smith, Madam Justice C.A. Gilmore writes that without production

"it is not reasonable to allow the Defendant to use the [unproduced] videotape as substantive evidence" and "the rules with respect to disclosure have been put in place for a specific policy reason [which] are to be strictly adhered to."12

A defendant wishing to bring privileged surveillance evidence into the trial of an action faces a steep curve when seeking leave under rule 30.09. The recent ruling at trial in the voir dire on surveillance evidence from Rolley v MacDonell reminds counsel of the difficulty and demonstrates the judicial scrutiny surveillance will face.13 Invoking Iannarella, Justice Corthorn's reasons restated the three-part judicial test to have unproduced evidence admitted as substantive evidence, " ...for a surveillance video recording to be admissible as substantive evidence, it must satisfy the following three-part test:

  1. Accuracy in truly representing the facts;
  2. Fairness and the absence of any intention to mislead, and;
  3. Verification on oath by a person capable of doing so."14

If and once surveillance passes this three-part test, to be admissible as substantive evidence, the probative value of the evidence must also outweigh the prejudicial effect.15

i. Accuracy

Respecting the first step of the test, Justice Corthorn quotes the accuracy standard directly from Iannarella:

"[T]he trial judge must be satisfied that the video is a fair and accurate depiction. This has to do with technical details, such as distortion and image speed. The relevant information can be led through the evidence of the videographers during the voir dire, whom the defence should make available if necessary. Where only an excerpt of the surveillance is tendered, the trial judge must also be satisfied that it is fair, accurate and representative of the events that it purports to depict."16

In that passage, fairness and accuracy are addressed from two perspectives. First, the passage deals with overall fairnessâ€"requiring that the video recording is a fair and accurate depiction in terms of technical details. Second, it addresses fairness and accuracy when only an excerpt of surveillance video recordings is tendered. In that instance, the excerpt tendered must be "fair, accurate and representative of the events it purports to depict."17

ii. Fairness and the absence of intention to mislead

A key takeaway from the Smith decision is the importance of choosing competent investigators who understand and respect the section 4.1 duty of expert imparted by the Rules.18 Justice Corthorn refused the plaintiff's request in this case to draw an inference of intent to mislead, favouring the defendant.19 Although there were some aspects of the investigator's testimony that spoke to the investigation being on its face 'misleading' she concluded that the investigator was forthright, not-defensive on cross-examination, thorough and credible.20 Although ultimately unsuccessful in the motion, the defendants did not have their motion denied on the basis of a poor expert or the issue of fairness.

iii. Verification of oath

In this regard, Justice Corthorn only canvassed the issue. At a preliminary level, she accepted that the investigator did the recording, made personal observations as he did so, and was personally responsible for editing the recordings.21 A secondary issue unresolved in this case as the surveillance was already rejected under the first part of the test, was whether verification for the third part of the three-part test requires evidence beyond that of the videographer.22 A defendant wanting to bring unproduced surveillance in at trial must be attentive to these verification standards.

Use of surveillance for impeachment:

If a defendant decides not to produce the surveillance in order to maintain privilege, it can still be used for impeachment purposes. Before surveillance can be used at trial it must pass a preliminary threshold common law rule from Browne v Dunn.23 The rule requires defence counsel to lay the proper evidentiary foundation prior to calling impeachment evidence. In Giroux, Justice Valin applying Browne to surveillance documents found that surveillance couldn't be used to ambush the plaintiff. Counsel must present the substance of the evidence and allow the plaintiff the opportunity to deny, explain or call evidence to rebut the surveillance.

The admissibility of impeachment evidence does not follow the same strict standard as substantive evidence under Rule 30.09. Admissibility of surveillance for the purpose of impeachment follows the standard of relevance. In Landolfi, the test was explained as:

"where evidence is tendered for impeachment purposes the admission of the evidence requires a showing of relevance to the credibility of a witness on a material matter and a further demonstration that the potential value of the proffered evidence to assist in assessing credibility outweighs the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence."24

Where the evidence is not relevant to impeach the plaintiff's oral evidence, it may be excluded and is subject to the trial judge's qualification of relevance on the facts.

Parties should not be fooled into thinking that the standard of relevance is inherently easier to meet. In Lis v Lombard Insurance Company, Justice Bryant held that proffered impeachment evidence did not, in fact, contradict the oral testimony of the plaintiff and refused to admit the surveillance evidence in fear that the jury might mischaracterize it as substantive evidence.25


In order to promote fairness and the objectives of efficiency and settlement, parties can expect the courts to rigorously enforce the Rules with respect to the disclosure and production of surveillance. For this reason, insurance defendants must elect tactfully with counsel the role surveillance will play. Producing surveillance evidence early runs the risk the plaintiff may mitigate the damage the evidence would otherwise pose at trial. On the other hand, maintaining privilege limits the defendant to only using the evidence for the purpose of impeachment. This strategy also carries risks. Depending on the evidence led by the plaintiff, the impeachment value of the surveillance may fall short of the relevance threshold. If rejected by the judge, the defendant's efforts and cost for obtaining the surveillance is lost.


1 2015 ONCA 110 [Iannarella].
2 See Rule 30.09 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Landolfi v Fargione, (2006) 79 OR (3d) 767, 265 DLR (4th) [Landolfi].
3 See Rule 53.08 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.
4 RRO 1990, Reg 194. The Rules of Civil Procedure [Rules].
5 Jay A. Stolberg, "Particulars of Post-Discovery Surveillance Must be Disclosed" (2015) February Insurance Bulletin.
6 (1991), 80 DLR (4th) 314 (Ont Gen Div).
7Ibid at para 10.
8 Ibid.
9 (1993), 19 CPC (3d) 12 (Ont Gen Div).
10 Supra note 2.
11 2011 ONSC 6834 [Smith].
12 Ibid at para 28.
13 2018 ONSC 164
14 Ibid at para 12.
15 Ibid at para 13.
16 Ibid at 21, quoting Iannarella at para 94.
17 Supra note 13 at para 22.
18 4.1.01 (1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules, (a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan; (b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert's area of expertise; and (c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue.
19 Supra note 11 at para 40.
20 Ibid at paras 36-37.
21 Ibid at para 43.
22 Ibid at para 46.
23 (1893) 6 R 67, H.L [Browne].
24 Supra note 2 at para 49..
25 [2006] OTC 580. See paragraph 21 where J. Bryant describes how surveillance video did not contradict the plaintiff, despite discrepancies it depicted activities consistent with the activities described by the plaintiff in her testimony.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McCague Borlack LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McCague Borlack LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions