S. Zilli

In a motor vehicle accident action, the plaintiff objected to the defence's expert medical evidence from Dr. Finkelstein, arguing the expert relied on inadmissible surveillance video.

A voir dire was held to determine admissibility.

The court ruled that Dr. Finkelstein could testify, but with conditions: no comment on surveillance in examination-in-chief, and the plaintiff could cross-examine on activities disclosed in evidence or directly on the surveillance (with defence re-examination rights).

The court balanced the probative value of the expert evidence against the potential prejudice from the inadmissible surveillance, noting the expert's opinions were largely independent of the video and foundational facts were already in evidence.

The defendants brought a motion to exclude the plaintiff's second orthopedic expert, Dr. Daniel Ogilvie-Harris, arguing that his testimony duplicated that of the plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Robert Luba, and citing prior judicial comments regarding Dr. Ogilvie-Harris's alleged bias.

The plaintiff sought to admit both experts, asserting distinct contributions and the need for a Rule 53 expert to challenge the defence's expert.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, allowing both Dr. Luba to testify as a participant expert and Dr. Ogilvie-Harris as a Rule 53 expert.

The court found that Dr. Ogilvie-Harris's opinion offered significant differences, including addressing the Insurance Act threshold and challenging the defence expert, and ruled that allegations of bias should be addressed in a voir dire.

The defendants sought leave to introduce surveillance evidence for substantive purposes in a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing late disclosure and prejudice.

The court found the defendants breached disclosure obligations under Rules 30.09 and 33.06, particularly regarding waiver of privilege when the evidence was provided to a medical expert.

Applying Rule 53.08, the court determined that significant prejudice to the plaintiff, including impacts on settlement considerations and trial strategy, could not be cured by an adjournment.

Leave to use the surveillance evidence for substantive purposes was denied, though its use for impeachment was not challenged.