Admissibility Of Surveillance Evidence At Trial

In  Rolley v. MacDonell, the defendant brought a motion for leave to rely on surveillance video recordings as substantive evidence. Three rounds of surveillance were carried out over a period of one year.

For a surveillance video recording to be admissible as substantive evidence, it must satisfy the following three-part test:

1. Accuracy in truly representing the facts;
2. Fairness and the absence of any intention to mislead; and
3. Verification on oath by a person capable of doing so.

(See Iannarella v. Corbett, 2015 ONCA 110, 331 O.A.C. 21, at para. 94 and Nemchin v. Green, 2017 ONSC 1321, at para. 16.)

In addition, the probative value of the evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.