In a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court, Justice L. Shaw upheld the privacy rights of a severely injured plaintiff, refusing a request by the defence to compel the production of video and audio recordings from a home surveillance system. The footage, captured by cameras installed by the plaintiff’s spouse for safety reasons, was sought by the defendants in an ongoing medical malpractice action involving claims exceeding $20 million. (Ibrahimova et al v. Cavanagh et al, 2025 ONSC 1152)

Facts:

The plaintiff, Ms. Ibrahimova, suffered catastrophic injuries in 2019 following a septic pregnancy loss. The claim alleges that three emergency room doctors failed to diagnose a serious infection, resulting in multiple life-altering outcomes, including an amputation, brain injury, and ongoing seizures. The family claims Ms. Ibrahimova now requires 24/7 attendant care, along with damages for income loss and other expenses.

The defendants argued that surveillance footage showing her daily activities would be relevant to determining the extent of care needed. However, the court concluded that while the footage may be relevant, the privacy implications were far too significant to ignore.

Justice L. Shaw ruled that the plaintiffs’ expectation of privacy in their home—where the recordings were never shared or posted—overrides the defendants’ request. The cameras were installed strictly for monitoring safety, not for litigation or public use.

“A party who commences a claim seeking damages for injuries and places their health, ability to work, and ability to care for themselves in issue does not automatically waive all their privacy rights.” — Justice L. Shaw.

Key Takeaways:

• Privacy in the home remains paramount, even in the face of relevant evidence.
• The footage was never intended to be used in litigation, and had not been shared beyond the household.
• Alternative evidence was already available, including multiple discovery sessions and in-home expert assessments.
• The court distinguished this case from social media and public surveillance rulings, where privacy expectations are lower.
• The judge emphasized the need to protect the dignity of injured plaintiffs, citing Stewart v. Kempster, 2012 ONSC 7236, that it would be “shockingly intrusive” to compel production of private, in-home footage.

This decision affirms that the pursuit of justice must be balanced with fundamental rights to privacy and dignity. It sets a critical precedent for future cases involving in-home surveillance, ensuring that the home remains a protected space—even amid complex litigation.

If you have been injured because of someone else’s fault, contact one of our lawyers today. We offer free initial consultation in English or French. Contact us through our website or by text at 613-777-0992.