Ontario civil | Evidence | Admissibility principles | Relevance
Plaintiff was injured in motor vehicle accident and she brought this action seeking damages. Plaintiff brought motion to exclude vehicle damage evidence at trial. Motion dismissed. Suggestion that admissibility of vehicle damage evidence required demonstration of relevance and necessity was incorrect. Although consideration of necessity might be required in determining admissibility of certain specific types of evidence, demonstration that tendered evidence was necessary for trier's determination of dispute was not general requirement for admissibility, and established general test for admission of evidence at trial rested on relevance. Vehicle damage evidence had probative value and was admissible without need for expert biomechanical evidence. Liability for underlying accident and claims for recovery of property damage were not issues to be decided at trial, trial would focus largely on assessment of plaintiff's condition and losses, but plaintiff downplayed equally important issue of causation which remained in dispute. Extent of damage to motor vehicles involved in collision had relevance and probative value, notwithstanding admission of liability, where remaining issues such as causation and damage assessment made it so. Expert biomechanical evidence or similar expert testimony was not precondition to admission of vehicle damage evidence. Vehicle damages photographs did not threaten any meaningful prejudice that would substantially outweigh their probative value. Prejudice in this context related to possible concerns about detrimental effect that admission of certain evidence might have on fairness and integrity of proceedings, and involved no considerations of moral prejudice or reasoning prejudice. Photographs of damage to plaintiff's vehicle were not irrelevant and probative value was not outweighed by their potential prejudicial effect to justify their exclusion pursuant to court's residual discretion. Decision was subject to defendants abiding by their undertaking that documentary evidence to be tendered would be limited to photographs without any request to have damage repair estimates entered into evidence. No expert evidence was required as precondition to admissibility of such vehicle damage evidence or arguments that probability of serious personal injury resulting from low impact motor vehicle accident might be less than probability of serious personal injury resulting from such accident. Final charge would include instruction that low impact motor vehicle accident did not negate possibility of serious personal injury resulting from such accident.
Ismail v. Fleming (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 17164, 2018 ONSC 6140, I.F. Leach J. (Ont. S.C.J.).
