www.lawtimesnews.com 21
"This decision is a great review of
how surveillance can be used at trial
[and] of counsel's disclosure obligations
throughout the course of the litigation."
Lindsay Charles, McLeish Orlando LLP
lawyer at Thomson Rogers LLP in Toronto.
"Yet, despite that, they were of the view
that it didn't materially affect the decision
in the case. It's really more of a process-
type decision in terms of how trial judges
should be dealing with motions by parties
to expect surveillance."
The judgment in Nemchin v. Green,
penned by Justice Peter Lauwers, states,
"The trial judge's task during the voir dire
is to look at each piece of video evidence
that the defence wants to put to the jury,
and determine whether it is, in and of itself,
admissible. This usually requires a discrete
and granular assessment."
Surveillance must be assessed by a trial
judge in voir dire for two purposes; first, "to
permit the videographer to be examined in
order to ensure that the video presents a fair
and accurate depiction for the surveillance
to be admitted in evidence," and second,
"for the trial judge to ensure that the use
of surveillance video will not impair trial
fairness." The test for admissibility is set out
in Iannarella v. Corbett, 2015 ONCA 110,
TRUST WELL PLACED
L. CRAIG BROWN
DARCY R. MERKUR
STEPHEN M. BIRMAN
MATTHEW J. SUTTON
RICHARD C. HALPERN
ALEKS MLADENOVIC
DEANNA S. GILBERT
ROBERT M. BEN IAN W. FURLONG
CARR HATCH
LEONARD H. KUNKA DAVID F. MACDONALD
JOHN-PAUL ZENI
SLOAN H. MANDEL
KATE CAHILL
LUCY G. JACKSON AVA WILLIAMS ADAM KARAKOLIS
MICHAEL L. BENNETT
STACEY L. STEVENS
Since 1936, Thomson Rogers has built a strong and trusting relationship with lawyers across Ontario.
For information about our Lawyer Referral Program, visit: www.thomsonrogers.com/referrals
TF: 1.888.223.0448 T: 416.868.3100 www.thomsonrogers.com
