The decision of Syed v. Petrie, 2020 ONSC 664 serves as an important refresher on the law of admissibility of surveillance at Trial for both Plaintiff and Defence counsel, particularly in relation to the late delivery of such reports.
Summary Judgment not granted where the inconsistencies of several witnesses and conflicting material evidence required an evaluation of credibility.
This is a decision about the admissibility of a 911 call after a motor vehicle accident for the truth of its contents.
At the conclusion of trial, the defendant brought a threshold motion and called two expert witnesses in support of the motion: Dr. Soric and Dr. Reznek. The Court found that the evidence from both witnesses contained serious flaws and expressed concern regarding how the majority of their income was derived from conducting medical-legal work for defendants. The motion was denied.
Late disclosure of surveillance evidence, in breach of the defendant’s continuing disclosure obligations, led the trial judge to exclude surveillance evidence both as substantive evidence and for the purpose of impeachment.
This appeal to set aside a dismissal granted at a summary judgment motion was allowed on the basis that the respondents failed to present evidence going to the merits of their defence but instead attempted to compel the appellant to deliver an expert report and show that she has not done so.
