Canada: The Use Of Surveillance At Trial

Last Updated: August 2 2019
Article by Stephen G. Ross, Brian Sunohara and Meryl Rodrigues

A decision released by the Ontario Court of Appeal provides some helpful guidance on the use of surveillance at trial.

Facts

The case of Nemchin v. Green, 2019 ONCA 634, arose out of a motor vehicle accident. At trial, the jury assessed 90% liability on the defendant and 10% liability on the plaintiff. The damages were assessed at approximately $700,000.

The plaintiff alleged that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), along with some residual physical issues. There was a dispute at trial on whether the PTSD was caused by the accident or whether it was caused by an earlier sexual assault. There was also a dispute as to the severity of the plaintiff's PTSD and its impact on her ability to earn a living at the time of trial.

The trial judge would not allow defence counsel to show the jury surveillance evidence and 20 of the plaintiff's own Facebook posts.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the exclusion of this evidence, which would have presented a more accurate picture of the plaintiff's true capabilities, was wrong in law and led to a miscarriage of justice requiring a new trial.

Test for Admissibility of Surveillance Evidence

Regardless of whether surveillance is introduced for impeachment or for substantive purposes, it must be assessed by the trial judge in a voir dire for two purposes.

The first is to permit the videographer to be examined in order to ensure that the video presents a fair and accurate depiction. The second is for the trial judge to ensure that the use of the surveillance will not impair trial fairness.

The Court of Appeal indicated that a trial judge is required to look at each piece of video evidence that the defence wants to put to the jury, and determine whether it is, in and of itself, admissible. This usually requires a "discrete and granular assessment".

In short, the admissibility of surveillance evidence is not an all or nothing exercise.

Impeachment vs. Substantive Use

When a defendant discloses surveillance evidence in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, the surveillance can play a dual role. It can be used for both impeachment and substantive purposes.

The Court of Appeal noted that plaintiffs will often argue that the surveillance is not relevant because the activities shown in the video are consistent with what he or she is able to do on a good day.

The Court of Appeal indicated that such statements generally do not inoculate a plaintiff from the introduction of surveillance evidence for substantive purposes.

Relevant evidence on a critical issue should not be excluded. It is ultimately a question of fact for a jury to weigh all of the relevant evidence on the nature and degree of any impairment.

Trial Fairness

Counsel need to be mindful of the rule in Browne v. Dunn, which requires a party to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any point he or she later intends to contradict by calling evidence to this effect or suggesting during closing submissions that the witness's testimony should not be accepted.

Where surveillance may contradict a plaintiff's evidence, the trial judge must decide whether the claimed contradiction warrants full-on cross-examination as a matter of trial fairness.

If there is a major discrepancy/impeachment, then the evidence should be put directly to the plaintiff in cross-examination. The Court of Appeal stated that a witness should not be called a liar without being given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy.

If there is only a minor discrepancy in the plaintiff's evidence, then the surveillance evidence can be put in as substantive evidence without first putting the discrepancy to the plaintiff.

Timing of Motions to Exclude Surveillance

The Court of Appeal stated that pre-emptive wholesale attacks on surveillance evidence should generally be avoided.

The most appropriate time to bring a motion to exclude surveillance evidence may be during the cross-examination of the plaintiff, just prior to when defence counsel intends to show the surveillance.

The Court of Appeal indicated that, if a motion to exclude surveillance is brought at an inappropriate time, it is open to the trial judge to refuse to hear the motion. The trial judge can invite the plaintiff to renew the motion at a more appropriate time.

General Errors in Trial Judge's Surveillance Ruling

Prior to the plaintiff's cross-examination, plaintiff's counsel launched a full-on challenge to the admissibility of all of the surveillance evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in accepting the approach of plaintiff's counsel of dealing with the video evidence as a whole, instead of taking a discrete granular approach to each video excerpt the defence wanted to put into evidence.

The trial judge also erred in concluding that the surveillance could only be shown to the jury if it contradicted the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal indicated that the evidence was arguably available to provide context and to qualify the plaintiff's testimony as to her true functionality.

In addition, the trial judge relied on the fact that the surveillance video was not put to the medical experts for their opinion on how it should be interpreted in light of the plaintiff's PTSD claim.

The Court of Appeal indicated that this is a factor the trial judge could take into account. However, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's analysis in this regard was lacking.

In particular, she failed to consider why a video of the plaintiff at a yoga retreat, which was introduced in the plaintiff's examination-in-chief, was in a different category than the surveillance video. Moreover, the trial judge did not consider whether the experts could have been consulted further to determine whether the video might have elicited further opinions.

One of the videos was disclosed late. The Court of Appeal indicated that a trial judge has discretion to exclude surveillance on this basis.

However, the trial judge did not assess whether admitting the late-disclosed surveillance would be prejudicial.

The Court of Appeal stated that late production is usually not a good reason for excluding relevant evidence where it is similar to evidence that was disclosed on time, such that neither the plaintiff nor her counsel would be unfairly caught by surprise.

Specific Issues on Surveillance Videos

The trial judge outlined four specific technical or "process" problems with the surveillance in determining that it should be excluded. The Court of Appeal found none of the trial judge's reasons in this regard to be persuasive.

First, some of the video was time stamped and some was not. The investigator who took the video explained that this was due to zooming in past the time stamp. The Court of Appeal indicated there was no evidence that the zoomed in video was different from the unedited video from which it was derived. The actual timing of the video, to the extent it was relevant, would have been easy to establish.

Second, the trial judge found that the investigator could not verify under oath that the video was accurate because he did not know precisely how the video had been edited. The Court of Appeal said that this does not affect whether a particular sequence of images was accurate or not in what it depicted, or the investigator's ability to authenticate it.

Third, the investigation company picked out still photos from the video that were included in the body of the surveillance reports. The pictures that were selected most described the plaintiff's inconsistencies, which concerned the trial judge. The trial judge was also troubled that some of the descriptions in the surveillance reports contained subjective elements.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge gave far too much weight to the written surveillance reports. The critical evidence was the video itself, not the reports. The reports could have easily been redacted or excluded if they contained questionable text.

Fourth, the trial judge was troubled by gaps in the surveillance footage. The Court of Appeal stated that there is no requirement for a video to be continuous or complete before it can be said to accurately depict a witness's activities.

The Court of Appeal noted that lengthy surveillance is rarely played for a jury. Doing so would usually be a waste of valuable trial time. The key is to ensure that the excerpts played are fair and accurate.

The Court of Appeal agreed with a leading text which indicates that a video recording is admissible as soon as it is established that it depicts the scene and has not been altered or changed. Any other factors, such as the integrity of the recording or the identity of a speaker, are matters for the trier of fact and go to weight only, not admissibility.

Facebook Posts

At trial, there was confusion over which of the plaintiff's Facebook posts had been produced by defence counsel. Based on this confusion, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's ruling excluding 20 of the Facebook posts was reasonable.

However, as an aside, the Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge was required to consider whether there were any realistic or meaningful concerns about the plaintiff and her counsel being unfairly taken by surprise by the admission of the Facebook posts at trial.

One wonders if the Court of Appeal's point here is that, since the Facebook posts were the plaintiff's own posts, there would be no surprise.

Refusal to Order New Trial

In considering whether to order a new trial, the Court of Appeal assumed that the surveillance videos were admissible and that the trial judge erred in excluding them.

In a civil action, a new trial should not be ordered unless the interests of justice plainly require it. The appellant must show that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.

The Court of Appeal held that, even if the excluded surveillance evidence were to have been admitted, it was not so significant that the evidence would have affected the jury's verdict on damages.

According to the Court of Appeal, the surveillance video did not add much to, or subtract much from, the video of the yoga retreat that was shown in the plaintiff's examination-in-chief. Further, the surveillance video posed no real contradictions and little grist for cross-examination.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision provides helpful guidance on surveillance evidence. The main points are as follows:

  • If a plaintiff argues that surveillance does not have any relevance or probative value on the basis that the activities shown on the video are consistent with what he or she is able to do on a good day, this generally does not inoculate the plaintiff from the introduction of surveillance evidence for substantive purposes.
  • Relevant evidence on a critical issue should not be excluded. A jury should be able to hear from a variety of sources apart from the plaintiff. It is ultimately a question of fact for a jury to weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion about the nature and degree of any impairment.
  • Even when surveillance is used for substantive purposes, if the surveillance shows a major discrepancy in the plaintiff's evidence, then trial fairness suggests that the evidence should be put directly to the plaintiff in cross-examination. However, if there is only a minor discrepancy, then the surveillance evidence can be put in as substantive evidence without first being put to the plaintiff.
  • A trial judge should not deal with surveillance evidence as a whole. Rather, a trial judge should take a "discrete granular approach" to each video excerpt that the defendant wants to put into evidence.
  • When a surveillance video is disclosed to the plaintiff late, a trial judge is required to examine whether its admission would be prejudicial. Late production is usually not a good reason for excluding relevant evidence where it is similar to evidence that was disclosed on time, such that the plaintiff and his or her counsel would not be unfairly caught by surprise.
  • The fact that surveillance is edited does not affect whether a particular sequence of the video is accurate in what is depicted or the investigator's ability to authenticate it.
  • There is no requirement for a video to be continuous or complete before it can be said to accurately depict a witness's activities. Lengthy surveillance is rarely played for a jury and is usually a waste of trial time.

In terms of a defendant's late production or non-production of a plaintiff's own social media content, such as Facebook posts, a trial judge is required to consider whether there are any realistic or meaningful concerns of the plaintiff and his or her counsel being unfairly taken by surprise.

The Court of Appeal's decision will likely result in fewer skirmishes at trial regarding the admissibility of surveillance videos and social media content. Such evidence will likely be more broadly admitted.

* The authors were counsel for the appellant.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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