“Unlawful” Surreptitious Recording of Defense Medical Appointments Not Admissible At Trial
Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, holding that a Plaintiff’s surreptitious recording of defence medical exams are not admissible at trial.
In today’s case (Cook v. Kang) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages. In the course of the lawsuit the defendant obtained a court order that the Plaintiff be assessed by defence selected physician. The Plaintiff also consented to see a second defence physician on similar terms as the court ordered appointment.
The Plaintiff surreptitiously recorded both appointments. This came to light during trial and the existence of the recordings was not disclosed to the defence ahead of time. The Court ruled that the recordings were not admissible on two grounds, first because they were not listed in compliance with the rules, second that recordings of court ordered medical appointments are “unlawful” without an express term permitting this.
In excluding the evidence Mr. Justice Riley provided the following reasons: