In the context of a medical malpractice lawsuit, the defendant physicians sought an order for the production of video/audio recordings from the plaintiffs’ in-home camera system, which was understandably opposed by the family. The purported reason for the request was to verify the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s disability by reviewing video footage of her in her own home from her own security camera.

The underlying action stems from extremely serious injuries sustained by Ms. Ibrahimova in May 2019 when she suffered a septic pregnancy loss. This resulted in her near-death, kidney injury and transplantation, below knee amputation, brain hemorrhage resulting in a craniotomy, hemiparesis, clawed hand, and seizures.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, who are three doctors she saw on different dates in the emergency department, failed to diagnose previable premature rupture of membranes leading to an infection which caused her injuries. As a result, she alleges that the defendants were negligent as they failed to meet the standard of care required of them and that their negligence caused her injuries. The plaintiffs are pursuing damages exceeding $20 million for past and future income loss, attendant care, and additional costs linked to the birth of a further child. 

In this motion, the defendant physicians sought production of recordings from an in-home camera system, which they believed were relevant to the extent of care Ms. Ibrahimova needs. 

The motions judge denied the defendants’ demand for production of this family’s recordings from their in-home security camera system. The motions judge considered the plaintiffs’ privacy rights heavily, noting the substantial expectation of privacy within one’s home. Differentiating this case from instances involving social media or public surveillance, the court affirmed that the in-home recordings were not intended for public consumption. The court deemed that it would be an invasion of the plaintiffs’ privacy to order the production of the in-home recordings.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that a plaintiff does not forfeit all privacy rights when seeking damages for injuries. Recognizing that the most private activities occur at home, privacy interests are highest in this setting. The court acknowledged the safety-focused intent behind the in-home cameras as well, highlighting the fact that the plaintiffs had not shared any recordings from the system with the public.

In sum, per paragraph 47 of the decision:

Thus, while the recordings of Ms. Ibrahimova in her home carrying out her activities of daily living are relevant to the issues in dispute, her privacy interests prevail. Using the words of Heeney J in Stewart v. Kempster, 2012 ONSC 7236, it would be “unimaginable” and “shockingly intrusive” for the plaintiffs to be ordered to disclose recordings of Ms. Ibrahimova in her home.