Managing Surveillance

Managing Surveillance

In 2015, I was honoured to speak to Stieber Berlach’s clients on the then recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision and leading case on surveillance, Iannarella v. Corbett, 2015 ONCA 110 (CanLII) (http://canlii.ca/t/ggbk3). I was pleased to deliver a paper I had written on the topic of properly using surveillance evidence in litigation cases.

Fast-forward three years and this latest decision on the use of surveillance from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice shows that: (1) parties still disagree on when surveillance ought to be served and (2) defendants are finding themselves in a predicament when obtaining fresh surveillance close to trial: Jamieson v. KapashesitAbitong et al. 2018 ONSC 279 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/hpsh4.

Fresh surveillance is helpful to the court because it can show the plaintiff’s current functional abilities and in a way that is understandable and relatable. On the other hand, defendants obtaining and serving surveillance too close to trial can be accused of engaging in trial by ambush and forced to pay costs thrown away.

In Jamieson, the Abitong defendants brought a motion four days before trial to use surveillance it had just acquired, had previously disclosed and produced, albeit the unedited video was produced days before trial.

Connell J. declared a mistrial and granted an adjournment such that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants would suffer prejudice. The adjournment permitted the plaintiffs to review the surveillance, make informed decisions, and to properly prepare for trial. The adjournment permitted the defendants to make use of the surveillance evidence, if so advised. Connell J. held the defendants’ actions primarily necessitated that a mistrial be declared and that an adjournment be granted in order to avoid prejudice. Given the circumstances, the court ruled the Abitong defendants pay $11,300 in costs for the adjournment.

Insights & Commentary

ONCA Clarifies Existing Jurisprudence Regarding the Disclosure of Settlement Agreements - photo
  • Commentaries

ONCA Clarifies Existing Jurisprudence Regarding the Disclosure of Settlement Agreements

By Landan Peleikis Introduction The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Poirier v. Logan[1] serves as a stark reminder of the detrimental consequences that result from failing to immediately disclose settlement agreements to non-settling parties. Background The respondents, Jeremy Logan and Morey Chaplick owned the respondent M.C. Capital Corp. (“M.C. Capital”). M.C. Capital ran a … Continued

The Court of Appeal upholds 26-month notice period in Currie v. Nylene Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 209 - photo
  • Commentaries

The Court of Appeal upholds 26-month notice period in Currie v. Nylene Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 209

In Currie v. Nylene Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 209, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an award of a 26-month notice period on the basis of “exceptional circumstances”. Background The plaintiff, Diane Currie, brought an action against her former employer after she was terminated.  Ms. Currie started working for her employer in September 1979.   In … Continued

by

A Great New Resource: Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario - photo
  • Commentaries

A Great New Resource: Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario

Stieber Berlach LLP is pleased to share an important new free textbook, Civil  Procedure and Practice in Ontario, which includes contributions from Katie Di Tomaso as an author of two chapters annotating sections 1-5 and 15-24 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and Christian Breukleman as an author of the chapter on Rule 29 of the Rules of Civil Procedure dealing with Third Party Claims. CPPO is … Continued

by

Human Rights Tribunal Finds “Good Faith” COVID-19 Restrictions Can Still Be Discriminatory, Sets Benchmark Monetary Award. - photo
  • Commentaries

Human Rights Tribunal Finds “Good Faith” COVID-19 Restrictions Can Still Be Discriminatory, Sets Benchmark Monetary Award.

JL v. Empower Simcoe 2021 HRTO 222 In a recent decision confirmed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “HRTO”) May 7, 2021 (2021 HRTO 348), the HRTO has ruled that COVID-19 restrictions and protocols accepted to benefit the health of the public can still be discriminatory under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”).  Restrictions … Continued

by

All News