Exchange of insults in video provided contextual framework for altercation

Plaintiff brought claim for personal injury, intentional infliction of harm, nervous shock, and mental distress against defendant . Plaintiff alleged that he was attacked by defendant in front yard of his home while defendant asserted that it was plaintiff who was aggressor in any altercation that occurred. Defendant sought to introduce evidence of eight surveillance videos he took of plaintiff as part of cross-examination and as substantive evidence. Voir dire was held to determine admissibility of surveillance videos. Evidence admissible in part. Videos one, five, and eight could be admitted into evidence both for purposes of impeachment and substantive evidence, and evidence of remaining videos was excluded on basis of relevance. Exchange of insults and obscenities in video one was relevant to development of toxic relationship between parties and provided contextual framework for altercation. Gestures made by plaintiff towards defendant’s kitchen in video five provided relevant evidence about contextual circumstances leading up to alleged assault. Observations shown in video eight were relevant to issue of plaintiff deliberately moving garbage onto defendant’s property. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy on part of plaintiff that justified exclusion of evidence. Probative value of evidence outweighed any prejudice.

Grech v. Scherrer (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 20270, 2018 ONSC 7206, M. McKelvey J. (Ont. S.C.J.).