This action arose from an alleged assault on the plaintiff by his neighbour. At trial, the defendant sought to rely upon surveillance he took of the plaintiff prior to the alleged assault, both on cross-examination and as substantive evidence. The plaintiff argued that the videos constituted intrusion upon seclusion. Justice McKelvey confirmed the requirements for the admissibility of surveillance. The Court excluded five of the eight videos on the basis of relevance. With respect to the remaining three videos, the court found they did not meet the legal test for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion and should not be excluded for any other reason. They were admissible for the purposes of impeachment and as substantive evidence.
