In Faizal v. Bowes, 2026 BCSC 348, the Supreme Court of BC considered whether ICBC surveillance footage should be admitted in a personal injury trial. The plaintiff alleged ongoing pain and functional limitation following a 2015 collision, particularly in relation to his ability to continue working in the trucking industry. His evidence focused on difficulty with long-distance driving, loading and unloading, and the broader physical demands of that work.
The disputed footage showed the plaintiff reacting to suspected surveillance near his home construction site, getting into his truck, following the investigator’s vehicle, and at one point attempting to cut it off. The defence sought to rely on that video as part of its challenge to the plaintiff’s claimed limitations.
Minimal Probative Value
The court found that the video had little or no real probative value. The plaintiff’s case was not that he was incapable of ever driving a vehicle. Rather, his claim concerned his inability to perform the sustained and physically demanding work of commercial trucking. There was no meaningful dispute that he could still drive his own pickup truck for short trips.
Prejudice Outweighed Any Value
Relying on R. v. Seaboyer and Sweitzer v. The Queen, the court confirmed that even relevant evidence may be excluded where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. Justice Veenstra accepted that the “car chase” nature of the footage risked creating hostility or disapproval toward the plaintiff and distracting from the real issues at trial.
Even though this was a judge-alone trial, ICBC surveillance was not automatically admissible. Where the footage is dramatic but does not meaningfully address the actual medical or vocational issues in dispute, the court may exclude it as more prejudicial than probative. This would be salient if it were a jury trial.
