3 total
Earlier disclosed surveillance admitted despite later disclosure breach.
In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs brought a motion to exclude surveillance evidence obtained by the defendant.
The defendant had disclosed a surveillance video from October 2012 well in advance of trial but failed to disclose additional surveillance from 2013 and 2014 until shortly before trial, contrary to an undertaking given at discovery.
The court held that although the defendant breached its disclosure obligations, the October 2012 surveillance could still be admitted as substantive evidence and for impeachment because it had been disclosed long before trial and both parties’ experts had reviewed it.
The later surveillance footage could not be relied upon by the defendant but remained available for the plaintiffs’ use.
Any potential prejudice could be addressed through supplemental expert reports or an adjournment.
Leave to appeal granted on scope of Rule 31.03 multiple discovery examinations.
The municipal defendant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order permitting the plaintiffs to examine a second municipal employee for discovery.
The underlying negligence action arose from a fatal motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by icy road conditions and inadequate road maintenance.
The motions judge had ordered the production of a patrol employee for discovery despite the municipality already producing a representative and while undertakings remained outstanding.
The court held that there was serious reason to doubt the correctness of the order because there was no evidence the first representative could not provide satisfactory answers through undertakings and the legal test for permitting multiple examinations may have been misapplied.
Given conflicting interpretations of Rule 31.03(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the absence of appellate guidance, the issue was found to be of public importance.
Claim for ongoing weekly income benefits dismissed due to lack of objective medical evidence.
The applicant was injured in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.
The applicant sought arbitration, claiming ongoing disability due to neck, shoulder, and back pain.
The arbitrator reviewed medical evidence and surveillance videotape showing the applicant performing physical tasks without apparent difficulty.
Finding the applicant's testimony evasive and lacking objective medical corroboration, the arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.
The claim for ongoing weekly benefits was dismissed.
