James Armstrong

On the eve of a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude late-served video surveillance reports or, alternatively, for an adjournment.

The court found that the recent surveillance was not substantially different from previously disclosed surveillance and did not unfairly surprise the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion to exclude the evidence, granting the defendant leave to use the reports for substantive purposes subject to a mid-trial voir dire.

A short adjournment was granted to allow the plaintiff to review the new surveillance.

The defendant in a motor vehicle accident claim brought a motion seeking production of the plaintiff's Children's Aid Society (CAS) records, arguing they were relevant to the plaintiff's claim for psychological injuries.

The court found that because the action had already been set down for trial, leave was required under Rule 48.04, which the defendant failed to justify as there was no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances.

Furthermore, the court held that the CAS file was not relevant under Rule 30.10, as it contained no psychological or medical records, and ordering its production would be a disproportionate invasion of privacy amounting to a fishing expedition.

The motion was dismissed.