Videotaping Examinations for Discovery

In what circumstances will a court permit examinations for discovery to be videotaped?

J.M. v. Clouthier, 2013 ONSC 155 (S.C.J.)

This action arose out of allegations of historical sexual assault.  The defendant was in his 70s and had diabetes and high blood pressure, although he submitted evidence that he had no current health issues.  The plaintiff wished to videotape the defendant's examination for use at trial in case the defendant was not available to testify by the time of trial.  The defendant argued that the dynamic of the examination for discovery would change, forcing him to incur more cost in preparation time, and the editing and splicing of video to be shown at trial could be prejudicial to him.
The motion was brought under r. 34.19, which permits pre-trial examinations by videotape "by order of the court", rather than r. 36, which permits evidence to be taken de bene esse.  A witness examined under r. 36 may be examined, cross-examined and re-examined in the same manner as a witness at trial. 
Given the technology available, one could imagine that more examinations for discovery might be amenable to videotape, particularly as demonstrative evidence is readily accepted and the trier of fact is likely to be comfortable with and perhaps even absorb visual information more readily than reading in transcripts.
Given the technology available, one could imagine that more examinations for discovery might be amenable to videotape, particularly as demonstrative evidence is readily accepted and the trier of fact is likely to be comfortable with and perhaps even absorb visual information more readily than reading in transcripts.


Justice Hennessy allowed the motion.  Technical issues could be dealt with by the trial judge. The Court was not convinced there would be substantially more time or cost involved in videotaping the examination, and the video could be useful in terms of showing documents, photographs or charts.  There was a higher than normal probability that the defendant would not be available at trial given his age and health status.  The video was permitted under r. 34 rather than r. 36. 

Amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards - Part 6

This week we continue our review of the amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards, which came into effect on January 25, 2013.

Part 6:  Sidewalks

The MMS were amended in February 2010 to require annual inspections of sidewalks for surface discontinuities and required treatment of surface discontinuities that exceeded two centimetres.  The standard has been amended to expressly provide that a surface discontinuity is deemed to be in a state of repair if it is less than or equal to two centimetres.  The standard also provides that sidewalks are deemed to be in a state of repair between annual inspections, provided that the municipality does not acquire actual knowledge of a surface discontinuity in excess of two centimetres.  It will be interesting to see the extent to which the constructive knowledge provision is applied in sidewalk cases.

Amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards - Part 5

This week we continue our review of the amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards, which came into effect on January 25, 2013.

Part 5:  New Ice Formation and Icy Roadways Standard

The MMS previously required municipalities to treat icy roadways within a prescribed time after becoming aware that the road was icy.  This remains the standard for roads that have become icy but is now part of a larger, more comprehensive standard for ice prevention and treatment. 

The standard for prevention of ice formation requires municipalities to monitor the weather and patrol as described above.  If, as a result of these activities, a municipality determines that there is a substantial probability of ice forming on a roadway, it must treat the road to prevent ice formation within a specified time, starting from the time it determines is appropriate to deploy resources for that purpose.  Treating a road means applying material, including but not limited to salt, sand or a combination. 

The ice prevention standard provides that roads are deemed to be in a state of repair until the time that the municipality becomes aware that the roadway is icy or the applicable time for ice prevention expires, whichever is earlier.  This should be read in conjunction with the constructive knowledge provision.  The icy roadways standard has also been amended to provide that roads are deemed to be in a state of repair until the applicable time for treatment expires.

As with the snow accumulation standard, the ice prevention standard is a response to the narrow interpretation of the icy roadways standard in Giuliani.  The discretion afforded to municipalities to determine when to deploy resources to prevent ice formation may be subject to challenge in future claims.  Nonetheless, compliance with the standard will assist in defending claims where it is alleged that a municipality failed to anticipate icy road conditions.

Amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards - Part 4

This week we continue our review of the amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards, which came into effect on January 25, 2013.

Part 4:  New Snow Accumulation Standard

The MMS previously required municipalities to clear snow within a prescribed number of hours after becoming aware of the fact that specified snow accumulation depths were reached.  This part of the standard is essentially unchanged, though it now requires municipalities to “address” snow accumulation and “reduce the snow depth” rather than “clear” the snow.   

However, there have been several additions to the standard.  The most significant addition is a provision which states that if the depth of snow accumulation on a roadway is less than or equal to the specified depth for that class of roadway, “the roadway is deemed to be in a state of repair with respect to snow accumulation”.  This provision is clearly intended to address the restrictive interpretation of the snow accumulation standard in Giuliani and should provide municipalities with a strong defence in cases where the standard is met.  The standard also sets out how the depth of snow accumulation on a roadway may be determined and how it may be addressed. 

The requirement that municipalities address snow accumulation after becoming aware of it must be read in conjunction with the constructive knowledge provision in section 1 of the MMS, which provides that a municipality is deemed to be aware of a fact if circumstances are such that the municipality ought reasonably to be aware of the fact.

Amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards - Part 3

This week we continue our review of the amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards, which came into effect on January 25, 2013.

Part 3:  New Patrolling Requirements

The MMS previously required routine road patrols and, during the winter maintenance season, required additional patrols of representative highways, as necessary, to check for snow and ice.  There has been no change to the routine patrolling requirement but the MMS now provide that if the weather monitoring discussed above indicates that there is a substantial probability of snow accumulation, ice formation or icy roadways, then municipalities must patrol representative highways, at intervals deemed necessary by the municipality, to check for snow and ice.  There is no change to the provision describing what patrolling consists of and by whom it can be done. 

Amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards - Part 2

This week we continue our review of the amendments to the Minimum Maintenance Standards which came into effect on January 25, 2013.

Part 2: New Requirement to Monitor Weather

The MMS did not previously require weather monitoring, although municipalities generally did so as part of winter maintenance operations.  The MMS now require municipalities to monitor the weather, both current and forecast for the next 24 hours.  From October 1 to April 30, weather must be monitored three or more times per day, at intervals determined by the municipality.  From May 1 to September 30, weather must be monitored once per day.  This amendment is clearly a response to Giuliani, in which the municipality was faulted for failing to monitor the weather and deploy resources in time to avoid the formation of ice on the road. 

The MMS definition of weather as “air temperature, wind and precipitation” tells municipalities what to monitor but the MMS do not state how this is to be done.  In addition, the MMS allow municipalities to determine the intervals at which the weather is monitored.  While these factors will allow monitoring systems to reflect local conditions, including budgetary constraints, we can expect to see claims challenging municipal decisions about the intervals at which weather is monitored and the methods used to do so.

Bad Drivers Shouldn’t Profit Off of Good Drivers’ Health Insurance

By Frank Pasternak

Imagine a law that will only benefit those people who do not have any health insurance and wrongdoers.

Well on February 13, Sen. Paul Farrow (who represents an area of Waukesha County that includes Pewaukee, Delafield, Hartland and Waukesha) and Sen. Glenn Grothman (who represents an area near West Bend and parts of northern Ozaukee County, including Port Washington and Cedarburg) did more than just imagine it; they introduced it. It’s Senate Bill 22, a law that would eliminate a long-standing rule of law in Wisconsin called the “collateral source rule.”

Basically, the rule says that benefits an injured person receives from sources that have nothing to do with the wrongdoer or “bad guy” causing the injury may not be used to reduce the bad guy's liability to the injured person. In other words, bad guys don’t get credit for benefits the injured person received just because the injured person was insured. This has been the law of Wisconsin for about 100 years.

The simple truth behind the rule is clear: wrongdoers should not benefit from the fact that the person they wronged was responsible enough to get insured. Unfortunately, however, as with many things, politics seems to have gotten in the way. Somehow, liability insurance companies like American Family, West Bend and others have convinced law makers, like Farrow and Grothman, that the bad guys should benefit from the fact that the injured person was responsible.

The law Farrow and Grothman have introduced will basically harm senior citizens, people who get insurance through their employer, and those on Medicaid. Ironically, the people who benefit from this law are those who do not have any health insurance and wrongdoers.

Let me explain: Say there’s a car accident where the wrongdoer ran a red light and caused four different people to incur $100,000.00 in medical bills each. All four suffered the same injuries and needed the same medical treatment. However, Victim #1 had no insurance, Victim #2 had Anthem BCBS through his employer, Victim #3 is a senior citizen on Medicare, and Victim #4 is a poor person on Medicaid.

Farrow and Grothman’s proposed law will allow into evidence the fact that Victim #2’s Anthem BCBS paid 80% of the bills due to contractual write-offs, the fact that Victim #3’s Medicare paid 60% of the bills, and Victim #4’s Medicaid paid 40% of the bills. As a result of Farrow and Grothman’s proposal, the recovery for medical bills will likely be:

1. Victim #1 $100,000 (the uninsured guy)
2. Victim #2 $80,000 (Employee with employer-sponsored health insurance)
3. Victim #3 $60,000 (Senior citizen with Medicare)
4. Victim #4 $40,000 (Poor person with Medicaid)

Now remember, the amount of the bills for all four people was the same $100,000. They all suffered the same injury in the same accident, but because of Farrow and Grothman’s proposed law, the bad guy causing the accident gets the benefit of the fact that Victim #2 was an employee with employer-sponsored health insurance, Victim #3 was a senior citizen on Medicare, and Victim #4 was a poor person on Medicaid. The other beneficiary of the proposed law would be Victim #1, the uninsured.

Under the current law, the red-light-running driver must pay the reasonable value of the injuries he caused, $400,000. Under the new proposal, the driver running the red light-will likely only pay, $280,000.

Under Wisconsin law today, the bad guy causing the accident does not get the benefit. The bad guy is simply responsible for the amount of the bills, assuming it is reasonable, and the only person who benefits is the person responsible enough to have insurance, the collateral source. Wisconsin law today says, rightfully, that bad guys do not get to benefit from good guys having insurance. The law today says that if anyone in this situation should benefit, it is the one who did not cause the accident. Surely, the one who caused the accident should not benefit.

Sadly, however, politics makes strange law, but I hope that’s not the case here. I believe in better. You deserve better. Sen. Grothman and Sen. Farrow should not support this law.

Email Sen. Paul Farrow at Sen.Farrow@legis.wisconsin.gov and Sen. Glenn Grothman at Sen.Grothman@legis.wisconsin.gov and tell them why they should not support this law. Tell Sen. Grothman and Sen. Farrow that this attempt to change Wisconsin’s 100-year-old law is unfair to Wisconsin citizens who are responsible enough to get health insurance.

The original version of this article is at Stand Up for Your Rights Wisconsin

Wisconsin Personal Injury Lawyer