Free Consultation 604-200-5965

ICBC surveillance.

• Do judges find video evidence valuable in helping them reach their decisions in injury cases?
• Sometimes a judge will find the video evidence very helpful. The following is an extract of a judge's decision in the case of Friesen versus Hsu:

  "Despite the plaintiff's assertion she is totally disabled from any employment, even part-time, a surveillance video… shows the plaintiff walking and moving about fluidly and freely. She is seen getting into the passenger side of a van and a car, seemingly without difficulty. She is seen to pull the car door shut while seated in the car, seemingly without difficulty. She is seen carrying a large but apparently empty cooler, as well as bags and garbage. "

  Other times, a judge will find that the video evidence is a waste of the court's time. If, for example, the investigator's bills to ICBC show that he spent 60 hours observing you, but only five minutes of his video show that you were performing strenuous activity, the value of the video is minimal.

  A video rarely shows how the injured person appears a few hours after attempting an activity.

  If a settlement cannot be reached, some injury claims are decided by a jury. A jury may be so upset by ICBC interfering with the injured person's privacy that it may make a larger award for damages than it would have otherwise made.