In this case, the Plaintiff argued that the surveillance did not satisfy the requirements of the three part test to be admissible as substantive evidence. Specifically, the Plaintiff argued that its accuracy did not truly represent the facts, that it was unfair, and that it had not been verified by a person capable of doing so. The Plaintiff also argued that the probative value of the surveillance did not outweigh its prejudicial effect. Justice Corthorn declined to admit the surveillance on the basis that it had too many gaps to be considered “fair, accurate, and represenetative of the events purposed to be depicted in the recordings”. Justice Corthorn also found that there was little probative value because the surveillance video did not show the Plaintiff engaging in activities that contradicted his reported abilities and because experts had not opined on what the surveillance meant as to the Plaintiff’s functional abilities.
